THE  HISTORIC  EVOLUTION  OE  VARIOLATION. 
By  Arnold  C.  Klebs,  M.  D.,  Lausanne,  Switzerland. 


hj  C> 


[From  The  Johns  Hopkins  Hospital  Bulletin,  Vol.  XXIV.  No.  265, 
March,  1913.] 


THE  HISTORIC  EVOLUTION  OF  VARIOLATION.*  f 
By  Arnold  C.  Ivlebs,  M.  D.,  Lausanne,  Switzerland. 

Immunology,  the  latest  child  of  medical  science,  has  reached,  [69] 
after  a short  existence,  a very  considerable  development,  some 
even  think  maturity.  However  true  this  may  be,  its  creation 
has  certainly  called  forth  efforts  of  the  most  varied  nature 
embracing  and  mobilizing  almost  all  branches  of  physical 
sciences.  The  very  acuteness  of  these  efforts  is  inimical  to 
retrospection.  Only  very  recently  some  experimenters  have 
searched  the  earlier  literature,  of  vaccination  for  instance,1 
for  support  of  their  conception.  Variolation  has  entered  very 
little,  if  at  all,  into  such  investigations  and  it  is  really  astonish- 
ing how  thoroughly  it  is  forgotten,  this  most  interesting  epoch 
in  medical  history,  which  kept  greater  and  humbler  minds  in 
fever  heat  during  almost  one  whole  century.  This  oblivion  is 
particularly  curious  because  variolation  called  forth  a unique 
and  extensive  trial  of  a specific  preventive  method,  the  logical 
consequence  of  which  was  vaccination.  Tins  fact  does  not 
detract  from  the  merits  of  Jenner,  who  by  observation  and 
conclusive  experiment  was  enabled  to  render  an  immortal  ser- 
vice. It  is  true  that  Jenner  was  unaware  of  the  generic 
identity  of  vaccinia  and  variola,  that  to  him  cowpox  was  a 
disease  sui  generis,  the  inoculation  of  which  conferred  im- 

* Authors  in  18th  century  literature  speak  only  of  “ inoculation  ” 
(ingrafting,  insertion).  At  present  for  the  sake  of  clearness  the 
term  “ variolation  ” seems  preferable.  In  retrospective  reviews 
of  the  subject  the  term  vaccination  is  often  used  erroneously  for 
variolation  and  a similar  confusion  is  likely  to  occur  if  modern 
writers  persist  in  using  faultily  the  words  “ vaccine  and  vaccina- 
tion ” for  protective  and  therapeutic  inoculation  generally. 

t Paper  read  before  The  Johns  Hopkins  Hospital  Historical  Club, 
October  14, 1912. 

1 von  Pirquet,  op.  cit.,  introduction. 


[69]  munity  to  smallpox  for  some  unknown  mysterious  reason.  It 
is  this  conception  which  stamped  vaccination  as  a new  de- 
parture and  it  is  largely  responsible  for  the  oblivion  into 
which  variolation  has  fallen.  Jenner’s  belief 2 3 in  the  common 
derivation  of  cowpox  and  smallpox  from  the  grease  of  horses, 
and  Pearson’s  and  Baron’s  vague  suspicions  of  a more  intimate 
relationship  between  variola  and  vaccinia,  passed  unnoticed 
for  almost  another  century,  after  which  the  intrinsic  analogy 
of  variolation  and  vaccination  could  be  demonstrated. 

In  searching  for  the  earliest  origins  of  variolation  I may 
cite  the  words  of  Sir  George  Baker,8  one  of  the  most  scientific 
inoculators  of  his  time : “ It  cannot  but  be  acknowledged  that 
the  art  of  Medicine  has,  in  several  instances,  been  greatly  in- 
debted to  accident  and  that  some  of  its  most  valuable  im- 
provements have  been  received  from  the  hands  of  Ignorance 
and  Barbarism.”  This  indebtedness  to  the  intuitive  genius 
of  popular  reason  and  procedure  is  strikingly  illustrated  in 
the  reports  of  early  practice  of  variolation.  While  the  learned 
since  oldest  times  strained  every  effort  towards  the  discovery 
p of  a Medicinal  antidote,  the  simple-minded  evolved  the  idea 
of  protective  inoculation.  It  is  difficult  to  ascertain  any  one 
locality  where  variolation  was  first  practised.  From  its  wide 
distribution  it  would  seem  that  it  arose  spontaneously  in 
various  places  where  the  need  for  it  occurred.  The  earliest 
alleged  reference  to  variolation  in  the  chronicles  of  the  Gth 
century  by  Marius,  Bishop  of  Avenches,  I have  been  unable 
to  verify.4  I found  only  the  well  known  report  of  a deadly 

[70]  epidemic  (570  and  571  A.  D.)  in  Italy  and  Gaul  of  a disease 
which  for  the  first  time  is  called  “ variola.”  5 * * Clearly  referring 
to  variolation  is  a remarkable  verse  of  the  School  of  Salerno8 


2 Jenner,  Inquiry,  1798,  3d  paragraph. 

3 G.  Baker,  An  inquiry,  etc.,  1766,  p.  1. 

4 Edit.  Bouquet,  Histoire  des  Gaules,  II,  12. 

5 Smallpox  is  hereby  not  defined  with  any  certainty.  Its  root 
varus  as  used  by  Celsus  and  Pliny  is  meant  to  indicate  a pustulous 
disease,  especially  of  the  face. 

0 S.  de  Renzi,  Flos  Medicinae  Scholae  Salerni,  Naples  1S59,  p.  90 

(3059,  et  seq.).  A footnote  of  the  editor  gives  as  his  opinion  that 
the  first  two  lines  refer  to  variolation,  which  was  not  invented  in 

the  18th  century,  or  in  Greece,  but  is  older. 


(2) 


(10th  or  11th  century)  entitled  adversus  variola  and  which  [70] 
runs  as  follows : 

Ne  variant  teneris  variolae  funera  natis 
lllorum  venis  variolas  mitte  salubres. 

Sen  potius  morbi  contagia  tangere  vitent 
Aegrum  aegrique  halitus,  velamina,  lintea,  vestes 
Ipseque  quae  tetigit  male  pura  corpora  dextra ,7 

For  preventive  purposes  the  voluntary  transference  of  a 
benign  variola  is  surely  recommended  here,  the  venis , however, 
may  indicate  “ system  ” generally,  in  which  case  the  disease 
is  to  be  transmitted  by  simple  exposure  or  we  may  take  it 
more  literally  and  an  operation  then  suggests  itself.  The 
last  three  lines  giving  preference  in  very  modern-sounding 
language  to  the  avoidance  of  infection  by  contact,  seems  to 
me  to  lend  strength  to  the  latter  interpretation. 

The  first  authentic  reports  of  this  practice  we  find  in  the 
Ephemerides  of  the  Academia  Caesarea  Leopoldino-Carolina 
published  at  Leipzig  between  1670  and  1705.  Here  Dr. 
Vollgnad  of  Breslau  8 in  1671  and  Dr.  Schultz  of  Thom  in 
1677  clearly  report  instances  of  the  custom  of  “buying  the 
smallpox.”  There  is,  however,  no  reference  made  to  the 
actual  inoculation  with  the  pock  scabs  purchased  in  the  plague 
house,  but  that  such  was  done  is  very  likely,  since  Schultz 
speaks  of  the  rather  serious  illness  which  his  own  brother 
acquired  in  this  manner.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  that  these 
cases  have  anything  to  do  with  the  sympathetic  transference 
of  disease,  which  agitated  some  medical  minds  of  the  day,  and 
as  instances  of  which  they  obviously  were  reported.  Creigh- 
ton9 gives  an  interesting  example  of  this  form  of  transplan- 
tation in  1657 : “ Some  persons  in  the  smallpox  keep  a sheep 
or  a wether  beside  them  in  the  chamber,  those  animals  being 

7 This  may  be  rendered:  In  order  that  variola  may  not  produce 

death  among  tender  babes,  put  into  their  veins  a favorable  variola. 
Better  still  they  should  avoid  touching  the  contagium  of  the  dis- 
ease: the  sick  person,  the  breath  of  the  sick,  the  clothes,  the  cover- 
ings, the  garments  and  such  clean  bodies  as  he  may  have  infected 
( tetigit  male)  with  his  hand. 

8H.  Vollgnad  (1634-1682),  member  of  Academy,  1669. 

0 Slatholm  (Buntingford),  1657,  cited  in  Creighton,  History  of 
Epidemics  in  Britain,  p.  475. 


(3) 


[70]  apt  to  receive  the  envenomed  matter  and  draw  it  to  them- 
selves”— only  a slight  modification  of  the  Jewish  scape-goat! 
Of  course  this  has  as  little  to  do  with  variolation  as  the 
Biblical  passage  cited  by  Massey  in  1722  in  condemnation  of 
inoculation : “ So  went  Satan  forth  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord  and  smote  Job  with  sore  boils  from  the  soles  of  his  feet 
unto  his  crown”  (Job,  II,  7). 

Further  reports  of  the  ancient  practice  all  date  from  the 
time  of  the  medical  introduction  of  variolation  to  Europe  and 
America.  They  were  of  the  usual  order,  meant  to  show  that 
there  is  nothing  new  under  the  sun  and  some  of  them,  there- 
fore, have  to  be  taken  with  caution.  Thus  we  hear  of  a crude 
variolation  in  Scotland  (Monro  I.,  & Kennedy),  in  Wales 
(Perrot  Williams),10  in  Auvergne  and  Perigord  (de  la  Con- 
damine),  in  Jutland  (Bartholin),  in  the  Duchy  of  Cleve 
(Schwencke)  and  other  parts  of  Germany.  Of  the  inocula- 
tions practised  in  Greece,  whence  it  was  introduced  to 
Western  Europe  by  way  of  Constantinople,  I shall  speak  later. 
Phe  earliest  traces  of  variolation  are  found  in  Asia  and  in 
Africa.  In  Africa  the  practice  continues  to  this  day  among 
certain  tribes,  chiefly  negroes,  in  the  eastern,  central  and 
western  regions.  On  the  White  Nile  in  the  equatorial  pro- 
vince (Welson  & Felkin)  among  the  Bari,  and  further  east 
among  the  Somali  (Stahlmann)  a similar  custom  is  found. 
It  seems  to  have  been  highly  developed  by  the  most  important 
of  the  native  Bantu  tribes,  the  Baganda,  living  northwest  of 
Lake  Victoria  in  the  old  Kingdom  of  Uganda.  Further  west 
we  find  the  Wanjamwesi,  and  in  the  Sudan  the  Ashanti,  and 
some  Moorish  tribes  practice  inoculation  on  their  children. 
From  northern  Africa  we  have  the  report  of  the  Tripolitan 
Ambassador,  Kassem  Aga,  which  made  the  round  of  18th 
century  literature,  about  the  ancient  variolation  by  Moham- 
medan tribes  in  Tripolis,  Tunis  and  the  Kabyl  mountains. 
Not  long  ago  we  had  a verification  of  tins  latter  report  by  a 
French  naval  physician,  Dr.  II.  Gros,11  stationed  at  Eebeval 
in  Algeria.  He  has  observed  a considerable  number  of  variola- 
tions  practised  by  Arabs  and  Kabyles  and  curiously  enough 

10  Philos.  Transact.,  1722. 

lxLa  variolisation,  Janus,  1902,  VII,  169. 


(4) 


comes  to  the  conclusion  that  variolation  ought  to  be  resorted  [70] 
to  if,  for  some  reason  or  other,  the  supply  of  vaccine  became 
exhausted.  This  account  contains  many  interesting  observa- 
tions which  corroborate  most  of  the  historical  records  of  the 
18th  century.12 

Exceedingly  interesting  accounts  about  smallpox  inocula- 
tions are  available  from  Asia.  I can  only  briefly  refer  to 
them.  China,  of  course,  again  is  said  to  have  known  variola- 
tion since  remotest  times.  We  have  no  reliable  data  as  to  the 
age  and  extent  of  the  practice;  we  must  be  satisfied  with  the 
knowledge  that  a method  of  inoculating  the  virus  into  the 
skin  or  in  the  form  of  dry  powder  blown  into  the  nostrils,  has 
been  known  to  exist  before  it  reached  Europe.13  In  India  a 
similar  method  seems  to  have  been  carried  out  on  a systematic 
plan  by  special  delegates  of  the  Brahmin  caste  in  conjunction 
with  a religious  cult  of  the  smallpox  deity.14 

None  of  these  primitive  variolations  served  to  acquaint  l"1! 
Western  Europe  with  the  practice.  Only  after  it  had  reached 
a certain  development  in  Constantinople  could  it  be  studied, 
reported  and  recommended.  From  this  city  Lady  Mary 
Wortley  Montagu,  wife  of  the  British  Ambassador  to  the 
Porte,  wrote  to  her  friends  at  home  about  the  method  of 
inoculation  as  practised  under  her  eyes  and  expressed  her  in- 
tention (to  Sarah  Chiswell,  April  1,  1717,  from  Adrianople) 
of  introducing  it  to  England.  She  even  caused  the  inocula- 
tion of  her  three-year  old  son  Edward,  by  a Greek  woman  with 
Maitland’s  assistance,10  and  influenced  that  of  the  three  chil- 
dren of  the  Marquis  de  Chateauneuf,  Secretary  to  the  French 
Embassy  at  about  the  same  time  (1718).  Her  inspiration 
and  these  examples  undoubtedly  opened  the  doors  for  the  in- 

12  Other  reports  from  travellers  about  variolation:  Bruce  (1790), 
Levaillant  (1790-1796),  Michaux  (ab.  1800)  for  Africa,  Cook  (ab. 

1780)  for  Senegambia,  Barbary,  Bengal. 

13  The  “ Tchan-teoo  ” or  “ sowing  the  smallpox  ” in  d’Entrecolles, 
Lettres  edif.  et  cur.  des  missions  1726,  XX,  34  (from  Pekin)  and 
other  reports  in  same  letters. 

“Holwell,  op.  cit.  Also  J.  Moore,  History  of  the  Smallpox, 
Lond.,  1815,  26-34,  with  plate  representing  the  religious  rite,  from 
a Hindu  drawing  in  the  library  of  Mrs.  Bliss  of  Kensington. 

“Letter  to  Lord  Montagu  (of  March  23,  1718)  at  Pera  from 
Belgrad. 


(5) 


[71]  troduction  of  the  practice  in  England.  There  was  already 
some  medical  agitation  on  the  subject,  before  Lady  Mary  be- 
came interested,  and  it  can  safely  be  presumed  that  she  was 
not  ignorant  of  it.  Dr.  Timoni,  a Greek  physician  of  Con- 
stantinople educated  at  Oxford,  published  in  1713  an  account 
of  the  method  of  variolation  as  observed  and  practised  by 
him.  In  December  of  the  same  year  he  sent  a personal  com- 
munication on  the  subject  to  Dr.  Woodward,16  who  read  it 
before  the  Eoyal  Society.  A little  earlier  a similar  report 
reached  the  Swedes,  sent  to  them  from  Bender  in  Bessarabia 
by  their  exiled  king,  Charles  XII,  with  the  recommendation 
to  introduce  the  method.17 

Other  medical  men  in  England  at  this  time  had  some  per- 
sonal knowledge  of  the  method  which  they  had  seen  practised 
in  Constantinople.  We  know  of  two,  a Dr.  Terry  of  Enfield, 
who  later  is  consulted  about  it  by  Sir  Hans  Sloane,  and  a 
Scotch  surgeon,  Peter  Kennedy,18  who  describes  the  method  in 
his  book  in  1715.  A dissertation  on  inoculation  appears  in 
Venice  by  a Dr.  Pylarini 10  the  next  year.  A friend  and 
former  consular  colleague  of  the  latter  in  Smyrna,  Dr.  Wm. 
Sherard,  informs  Sir  Hans  Sloane  and,  through  him,  the 
Eoyal  Society,  of  this  publication  with  details  about  the 
method  and  an  account  of  Dr.  Pylarini's  experiences.  Xow 
the  Eoyal  Society  becomes  really  interested  and  the  pages  of 
the  Philosophical  Transactions  of  the  following  years  are  filled 
with  further  accounts,  which  Douglass  of  Boston  later  (1730) 
characterizes  sneeringly  as  “ virtuoso  amusements.” 

At  the  same  time  something  was  heard  of  the  “ Greek 

“John  Woodward  (1665-1728)  excellent  geologist,  but  poor 
physician.  See  Creighton’s  (op.  cit.,  p.  449)  amusing  account  of 
his  duel  with  Mead  in  Gresham  College  where  he  was  professor 
of  physic.  Its  cause,  the  smallpox  controversy,  involved  also 
Friend  and  later  Dover.  In  1718  he  published  a tract  “ the  State 
of  Physick  ” in  which  he  discussed  the  “ new  practice  of  purgeing  ” 
in  smallpox. 

17  This  report  was  probably  written  by  the  king’s  physician, 
Skraggenstyerna. 

18  Peter  Kennedy:  Essay  on  external  remedies  (Chap.  37),  1715. 

19  Pylarini,  Nova  et  tuta,  etc.,  1715.  Sloane  in  Phil.  Trans., 
XXIX,  1716. 


(6) 


method”  in  France.  Boyer  20  of  Montpellier,  later  Dean  of  [71] 
the  Medical  Faculty  of  Paris  (1756),  had  travelled  as  a young 
man  in  the  Orient  and  had  there  become  acquainted  with 
variolation.  On  his  return  to  Montpellier  he  studied  medicine 
and  wrote  his  inaugural  thesis  (1717)  on  inoculation  and 
the  reasons  why  it  might  be  imitated  to  great  advantage  in 
France.  Actual  inoculations  very  probably  were  practised  in 
Paris  at  about  this  time  by  a Greek  physician  Carazza.  Eller 
tells  us  of  making  his  acquaintance  there,  and  how  he  was 
taught  the  method  and  how  he  successfully  inoculated  a 
child.  Although  Eller  does  not  mention  the  exact  date,  it 
is  evident  that  it  took  place  in  or  before  1720,  because  in 
that  year  he  went  with  Lord  Peterborough  to  England  and 
returned  from  there  to  Germany  in  January  1721.21 

At  this  moment,  when  the  new  method  knocked  at  the  doors 
of  the  universities,  promising  fresh  hopes  but  also  planting 
the  first  seeds  of  discord  among  the  sister  faculties,  the  18th 
century  is  yet  young.  The  glaring  contrasts  and  contradic- 
tions are  not  as  apparent  as  they  will  become  later,  the  genius 
of  Newton — he  still  presides  over  the  Eoyal  Society— is  only 
beginning  to  assert  itself.  In  medicine  Sydenham’s  influence 
is  paramount,  while  Boerhaave  in  Leyden  and  Morgagni  in 
Padua  are  training  men  who  are  to  found  modern  medical 
science.  Hoffmann  and  Stahl  supply  the  cravings  for  theoret- 
ical contemplation,  while  practice  continues  on  old  lines. 
Everywhere  reform  is  in  the  air,  the  struggle  against  super- 
stition and  for  tolerance  has  begun.  The  realization  that 

20  J.  B.  N.  Boyer,  1693-1768. 

21  J.  Th.  Eller,  Observationes  cognoscendis  et  curandis  morbis 
praesertim  acutis,  Regimont.  & Lips,  1762,  p.  150.  (French  transl. 

Par.  1774.)  Eller  was  born  in  the  Duchy  of  Anhalt  in  1689,  became 
M.  D.  in  1716  then  travelled  in  Holland  and  practised  in  the  mines 
of  the  Harz  Mountains.  From  here  he  went  to  Paris  and  worked 
under  Hecquet,  Astruc,  Helvetius  and  Winslow,  giving  much  atten- 
tion to  surgery,  at  the  Hotel  Dieu  and  the  Salpetriere.  In  London 
he  frequented  Cheselden,  Mead,  Sloane  and  Newton.  He  left 
London  in  January,  1721,  became  court  physician  in  Anhalt,  in- 
oculated several  persons,  and  in  1724  he  was  at  the  court  of  Berlin, 
teaching  at  the  newly  founded  Medico-Surgical  College.  He  and 
Stahl  (Halle)  are  largely  responsible  for  the  sanitary  reform  in 
Prussia,  which  formed  the  basis  for  the  present  institutions. 


(7) 


[71]  the  riddles  of  life  and  its  problems  are  not  to  be  solved  by 
pure  metaphysical  speculation  begins  to  dawn  upon  the  learned 
and  experiment  is  more  and  more  resorted  to  for  the  final 
criterion. 

From  the  time  of  its  introduction  to  the  Occident  in  1713 
to  the  advent  of  vaccination  in  1798  and  its  general  accept- 
ance in  1840,  variolation  does  not  follow  a course  of  steady 
progress.  As  we  shall  see,  it  enjoys  a few  years  of  the  success 
of  novelty  (until  1727),  followed  by  twenty  years  (1746)  of 
indifference,  after  which  it  slowly  gives  rise  to  a remarkable 
period  of  serious  scientific  investigation. 

The  honors  of  the  first  inoculation  in  the  Occident  (except- 
ing that  by  Eller  in  Paris)  will  probably  best  be  divided  be- 
tween London  and  Boston.  Dr.  Fitz,  in  an  admirable  account 
of  the  early  inoculations  in  Boston,  tends  to  the  belief  that 
Boylston,  inspired  by  Cotton  Mather,  made  his  first  attempt 

[72]  without  knowing  of  the  inoculations  performed  in  London.22 
There  is  no  direct  evidence  of  his  ignorance  and  he  certainly 
had  time  to  learn  about  the  London  inoculations  in  April  and 
May,  since  he  inoculated  his  son  Thomas  and  the  two  slaves 
on  June  26.  Undoubtedly  he  had  courage  enough  to  proceed 
without  any  other  assurance  than  that  of  his  friends  and  the 
older  reports  at  hand,  but  the  situation  was  precarious  and  it 
looks  as  if  the  latest  news  may  have  been  welcome  and  actually 
determined  him. 

The  merits  of  Lady  Montagu  in  inciting  the  early  trials  in 
London  were  undoubtedly  great  in  that  j^ear  of  1721,  when  the 
smallpox  was  raging  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic.  A Portu- 
guese physician  in  London,  a Castro,  had  anonymously  pub- 
lished a pamphlet  on  the  subject  in  March  and  Dr.  Walter 
Harris  spoke  recommendingly  of  inoculation  before  the  Col- 
lege of  Physicians  on  April  17.  Lady  Mary  probably  did  not 
need  these  learned  suggestions  to  remind  her  of  her  experience 
in  the  Orient  and  with  the  danger  of  smallpox  at  the  door,  she 

^Professor  Kittredge  (op.  cit.)  has  recently  given  valuable  ad- 
ditional information  on  the  subject  of  early  variolation  in  Boston. 
It  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  Cotton  Mather’s  knowledge  of  it  has 
not  been  fully  recognized  and  especially  that  he  was  acquainted 
with  variolation  (among  negroes)  before  he  received  the  reports 
about  it  from  Europe. 


(8) 


had  Maitland  inoculate,  in  April,  her  four-year  old  daughter,  [72] 
the  future  Lady  Bute.  One  of  the  three  interested  spectators 
from  the  College  of  Physicians,  Dr.  Keith,  was  sufficiently 
impressed  by  the  harmlessness  of  the  operation  to  have  his 
own  six-year  old  son  inoculated  on  May  11.  In  this  case, 
bleeding  was  resorted  to  as  a preparatory  measure  and  we  see 
herein,  as  also  in  similar  examples  in  Boston,  the  germ  of  that 
“ preparation  ” which  is  to  play  such  an  important  role  later 
on.  Lady  Mary  meanwhile  does  not  stop  with  the  inoculation 
of  her  own  child ; she  takes  up  the  personal  propaganda  begun 
in  her  letters  from  the  Orient,  she  finds  it  now  easy  to  induce 
many  of  her  friends  to  follow  her  example,  but  her  main 
efforts  she  exerts  towards  winning  the  court.  In  this  task  she 
is  aided  by  her  intimate  relationship  with  the  Princess  of 
Wales,  later  Queen  Caroline,  whom  Yoltaire,  because  of  her 
intelligent  interest  in  arts  and  sciences,  addresses  as  the 
“ philosopher  on  the  throne.”  George  I is  willing  to  permit 
the  inoculation  of  his  grandchildren  but  a preliminary  experi- 
ment is  deemed  advisable.  Here  is  the  first  beginning  of 
scientific  procedure.  Six  condemned  criminals  in  Newgate 
prison  are  inoculated  as  test  cases,  the  best  medical  men  of 
London  are  watching  the  experiment,  with  Mead  at  their  head. 
Nothing  unusual  happens;  somewhat  severe  symptoms  are 
observed  only  in  one  girl,  whom  Mead  inoculated  with  dried 
virus  in  the  nostrils  (Chinese  method),  but  she  also  recovers. 

One  man  in  whom  the  inoculation  did  not  “ take,”  is  found 
to  have  had  smallpox  before.  A further  test  is  made  by 
Mead  and  Steigerthal,  who  send  one  of  the  inoculated  patients 
to  Hertford  where  a severe  epidemic  rages ; no  infection  takes 
place.  George  I and  his  court  feel  reassured  by  the  results 
of  these  experiments,  and  further  good  reports  having  reached 
the  town  from  Halifax,  in  Yorkshire,  where  Nettleton  had 
inoculated  with  satisfactory  results  since  December,  the  opera- 
tions on  the  Princesses  Amelia  and  Caroline  take  place  on 
April  19,  1722.  The  surgeon  Amyand,  attended  by  Sir  Hans 
Sloane,  Teissier  and  Maitland,  performs  the  inoculation.23 
The  immediate  result  of  this  evident  approval  of  variolation 

23  A medal  was  struck  to  celebrate  the  event.  Av.  George  I,  1721, 

Rev.  Inoculation  instituted.  (Pfeiffer,  373a.) 


(9) 


[72]  by  the  court  was  that  the  nobility  hastened  to  follow  the 
august  example  and  so  we  find  the  gazettes  reporting  on  these 
events,  mentioning  all  the  names  of  the  ultra-fashionables. 
The  next  result  was  the  formation  of  two  opposing  factions. 
Pamphlets  were  written,  sermons  preached  for  and  against 
the  new  method,  mostly  by  people  who  knew  nothing  or  next 
to  nothing  about  inoculation.  This  condition  continues 
through  the  whole  epoch  of  variolation  and  as  a matter  of 
fact  long  after  its  abandonment.  In  the  vast  literature  there- 
by produced  it  is  often  exceedingly  difficult  to  find  one’s  way. 
Wagstaff,  the  medical  satirist,  Blackmore,  inferior  medical 
author  and  poet,  Clinch,  the  surgeon,  Massey,  the  apothecary 
of  Christ  Hospital,  are  the  chief  opponents;  the  learned  Dr. 
Freind  21  wavers,  but  objects  to  the  noise  made  about  inocula- 
tion, Arbuthnot,  friend  of  Pope  and  Swift  and  commentator 
of  Boerhaave,  Jurin,  secretary  of  the  Royal  Society  under 
Newton,  Mead  and  Sloane  were,  however,  more  or  less  active 
in  the  recommendation  of  inoculation. 

The  arguments  brought  forth  against  variolation  were,  its 
risks  to  the  individual,  the  uncertainty  of  its  protective  power 
and  the  danger  of  its  spreading  the  disease.  The  last  argu- 
ment had  received  support  when  the  news  came  of  an  accident 
that  had  happened  in  Maitland’s  experience  at  Hertford,  where 
he  had  gone  to  inoculate  in  the  autumn  of  1721.  A child  ill 
with  artificial  smallpox  had  infected  six  servants  of  whom 
one  had  died.  This  demonstration  of  the  contagiousness  of 
inoculated  smallpox  offered  the  strongest  point  to  the  cause 
of  the  opponents.  They,  however,  resorted  oftenest  to  personal 
vituperation  or  bitter  condemnation  on  religious  and  moral 
grounds.  On  the  other  hand  the  inoculators  and  their  up- 
holders, although  reiterating  the  most  obvious  advantages  of 
inoculation,  viz.,  freedom  in  the  selection  of  appropriate  sub- 
jects (children),  favorable  external  circumstances  (seasons), 
and  careful  preparation,  resorted  almost  exclusively  to  statisti- 
cal data  in  their  support.  Jurin,23  who  excelled  in  mathe- 

21  See  reference  to  John  Gaddesden  in  his  “ History  ” (1725) : had 
he  “ lived  in  our  day,  he  would,  I don’t  question,  have  been  at  the 
head  of  the  inoculators.”  (Creighton  II,  478.) 

25  Jurin  to  Cotesworth  1723.  James  Jurin  horn  1684,  secretary 
and  later  president  of  Royal  Society,  was  one  of  the  first  physicians 

(10) 


matics,  soon  collected  enough  cases  to  figure  out  the  ratios  as:  [72] 
One  death  only  in  91  inoculated  (two  in  182),  while  the 
natural  smallpox  killed  one  in  five  or  six.  He  refers  to  the 
“ letter  of  Cotton  Mather  of  the  10.  March  1721  ” 20  in  which 
five  to  six  deaths  are  reported  among  300  inoculations,  mak- 
ing a ratio  of  one  in  60.  He  concludes  from  it  that  inocula-  l'3! 
tors  in  New  England  were  less  careful.27 

The  technique  meanwhile  had  seen  considerable  deviations 
from  its  primitive  Greek  prototype.  In  Constantinople, 
Maitland  had  already  replaced  the  dirty  needle  of  the  woman 
operator  by  the  lancet.  Nettleton,  who  probably  had  the 
largest  experience  in  these  early  years,  thought  it  important 
to  make  rather  deep  incisions  and  to  keep  them  open  so  that 
the  wound  would  drain  freely  and  allow  the  morbid  humors 
to  escape.  The  arms  or  thighs  were  the  favorite  regions 
chosen.28  The  virus  was  taken  directly  from  a smallpox  patient 
and  transferred,  or  it  was  collected  on  threads  and  dried  for 
later  use. 

It  seems  that  the  inoculations  were  not  often  performed  by 
the  physicians  themselves;  they  usually  had  a surgeon  do  it 
and  watched  the  case  before  and  after.  Thus  a type  of  inocu- 
lation specialist  was  evolved  and  all  sorts  of  people  took  it  up  as 
a lucrative  profession.29  Some  of  the  failures  may  easily  be 
attributed  to  crude  methods.  Maitland  seems  to  have  created 
the  type  of  the  itinerant  inoculator,  whom  we  can  soon  follow 
all  over  Europe.  We  have  already  encountered  Maitland  in 
Hertford ; a few  years  afterwards  he  is  on  the  continent  inocu- 
lating Prince  Frederick  and  others  at  Hanover.  After  this  we 

to  Guy’s  Hospital.  The  advocacy  of  his  “ lixivium  lithontripticum  ” 
brought  him  questionable  fame. 

28  A.  L.  (contemporary  copy)  in  Sloane  MSS.  3324,  fol.  260  (see 
Kittredge,  op.  cit.,  p.  477).  The  letter  is  also  quoted  by  Douglass  in 
his  “ dissertation  ” of  1730. 

27  The  figures  of  Cotton  Mather  are  quoted  by  the  anti-inoculists 
again  and  again  with  considerable  success  all  over  Europe. 

28  In  the  Greek  practice  the  forehead,  shoulders,  hands  and  other 
parts  of  the  body  were  chosen,  the  choice  being  determined  on 
religious  grounds  and  it  varied  w'ith  individual  inoculators. 

20  We  know  of  a blacksmith  who  thus  changed  his  occupation,  and 
a man-servant  who  gave  notice  to  his  employer  because  he  could 
earn  more  as  an  inoculator.  ("Wafts,  W’atson.) 


(ID 


[73]  find  him  in  Scotland  30  where  he  has  ill-luck,  losing  one  in  ten. 
This  experience,  the  Hertford  case,  and  the  deaths  of  several 
prominent  persons,  duly  registered  in  the  gazettes,  added 
powerfully  to  the  arguments  of  the  opponents.  The  subject 
was  brought  up  in  Parliament  and  inoculation  declared  dan- 
gerous. This  was  in  1728.  Up  to  that  year  Jurin31  could 
collect  in  his  report  897  known  inoculations  with  17  deaths, 
not  all  directly  attributable  to  the  operation.  He  considered 
the  practice  now  “ exploded,”  while  the  otherwise  sceptical 
Douglass82  admits  that  the  opponents  are  now  prepared  to 
acknowledge  that  “ inoculation,  generally  speaking,  is  a more 
easy  way  of  undergoing  smallpox.” 

The  Continent,  meanwhile,  did  hardly  more  than  act 
the  part  of  the  spectator.  LeDuc  of  Constantinople  writes 
the  first  inaugural  thesis  on  inoculation  at  Leyden ; it  is 
approved  on  July  28,  1721,  and  published  together  with  the 
dissertations  of  a Castro  and  Walter  Harris  of  London  in 
1722.  Boerhaave  maintained  an  expectant  attitude.  We  have 
no  reports  of  his  having  tried  the  method  himself  or  persuaded 
others  to  do  so.  Theoretically  he  surely  approved,  for  we 
find  him  saying  at  the  end  of  his  Aphorism  1403  (Edit., 
Leyd.,  1727).  : Prophylaxis  insitiva  videtur  satis  certa  tutaque. 
Of  his  pupils  Van  Swieten  continues  in  this  reserved  attitude, 
while  de  Haen  becomes  one  of  its  most  persistent  opponents 
and  Tronchin  one  of  the  most  famous  inoculators  in  Europe. 

In  Germany  Eller,  whom  we  have  met  already  in  Paris,  has 
returned  to  his  home  in  Anhalt.  As  physician  to  the  local 
court  he  performs  two  inoculations,  but,  soon  called  to  the 
Prussian  court,  he  is  not  allowed  to  see  smallpox  cases  and 
has  to  desist.  In  Breslau  reports  are  received  of  inoculations 
performed  by  one  Reimarus  in  Hungary.83  In  the  two  uni- 
versities, Altdorf  and  Erfurt,  which  have  long  ceased  to  exist, 
doctor  dissertations  are  published  on  inoculation  by  Miilich 

30  Alex.  Monro  I,  1697-1767. 

31  See  also  Scheuchzer  (son  of  the  Zurich  naturalist)  on  success 
in  Great  Britain,  1729.  Another  late  endorser  of  the  method  was 
Lobb  in  1831.  (His  treatise  on  smallpox  received  the  praise  of 
Boerhaave.) 

32  Douglass,  1730,  op.  cit. 

33Breslauer  Versuche,  XVII,  253. 


(121 


and  Cramer,34  but  they  report  no  new  trials.  In  Hanover,  [73] 
however,  the  inoculation  of  Prince  Frederick  acted  as  a stimu- 
lant. J.  E.  W reden  publishes  a treatise  on  it  and  his  son  John, 
later  body  surgeon  to  the  Prince  of  Wales,  soon  begins  to 
inoculate.35  Outside  of  the  Electorate  of  Hanover,  naturally 
influenced  by  England.  Germany  contributes  very  little  to  the 
history  of  inoculation.  Of  Austria,  Italy  and  Switzerland  I 
shall  speak  later.  In  Sweden  we  have  one  publication  in  1737 
by  Spoering,  but  also  no  actual  inoculation. 

The  history  of  variolation  in  France  offers  much  of  interest 
and  forms  a valuable  contribution  to  the  annals  of  culture  in 
general.  At  the  time  when  variolation  first  appeared  in  Eng- 
land, medical  science  and  practice  in  France  had  made  little 
progress  since  the  days  of  Ambroise  Pare  and  Guy  Patin. 
Montpellier  showed  more  signs  of  progressive  activity  and  in 
later  years  especialty,  the  children  of  this  Alma  Mater  were 
prominent  in  the  ensuing  struggle.  While  in  England  inocu- 
lation occupied  minds  rather  intensely  for  eight  years,  only  in 
the  one  year  of  1723  is  this  subject  at  all  considered  in  France, 
particularly  in  Paris,  and  then  only  academically.  Louis  XY 
was  then  thirteen  years  old  and  the  Duke  of  Orleans  was 
nearing  the  end  of  his  regency  and  his  life.  Dr.  de  la  Coste, 
an  enthusiast  for  inoculation,  who  had  followed  its  intro- 
duction to  England,  writes  about  it  to  Dodart,36  formerly 
physician  to  Louis  XIV.  He  tells  him  all  he  knows  about 
the  subject  and  especially  that  the  English  court  is  in  favor 
of  it.  At  a solemn  meeting  at  the  Sorbonne  he  explains  to 
the  learned  dean  and  nine  doctors  the  evident  advantages 
of  inoculation.  After  a careful  analysis  of  the  moral  and 
religious  factors  involved,  it  was  decided  that  experiments 
might  be  made  without  interfering  seriously  with  Divine 
providence.  This  meeting  had  the  effect  of  winning  over 
the  Regent,  who  also  probably  was  influenced  favorably 
by  Helvetius  37  who  was  close  to  him  at  the  time.  It  therefore 
looked  for  a while  as  if  experiments  might  begin.  Then 

34  1725  and  1726. 

35  Report  in  1739,  London. 

30  Cl.  J.  B.  Dodart,  1664-1730. 

37  J.  Cl.  Adr.  Helvetius,  1685-1755. 

(13) 


[73]  appeared  an  anonymous  pamphlet  entitled:  Raisons  de 

doute  contre  V inoculation,  in  which  strong  language  was 
used  against  la  methode  anglaise  and  its  promoters.  It 

[74]  was  soon  learned  that  the  author  was  old  Hecquet,38  dean  of 
the  Faculte  de  medecine,  more  theologian  than  physician  and 
a stubborn  opponent  of  all  innovations.  His  words  carried 
much  weight  and  when  the  Regent  died  on  December  3,  the 
chance  of  inoculation  grew  very  faint  and  was  entirely  ex- 
tinguished at  a meeting  in  the  Ecole  de  Medecine  on  Decem- 
ber 30  39  where  the  qucestio  medica,  worded  ominously  “ Is  it 
a crime  to  inoculate  ? ” was  discussed  under  the  presidency  of 
Claude  de  la  Vigne,40  the  new  king’s  new  physician.  An 
interesting  contrast:  the  Sorbonne  for,  the  Ecole  de  Medecine 
against  the  new  method ! As  a child  Louis  XV  comes  to 
power;  he  was  of  course  not  to  blame  in  that,  for  30  years 
after  his  advent,  inoculation  was  hardly  mentioned  in  France, 
but  curiously  enough,  as  a man,  after  50  years  of  a disastrous 
reign,  he  falls  victim  to  the  very  disease  the  method  was  in- 
tended to  prevent.  Voltaire,  in  his  apartment  quite  close  to 
the  Ecole  de  Medecine,  at  this  moment  is  making  a very 
personal  and  most  unpleasant  acquaintance  with  smallpox, 
nursed  by  his  devoted  friend  Adrienne  Lecouvreur.  Two  or 
three  years  hence  he  is  to  begin  his  eloquent  propaganda  for 
inoculation  in  one  of  his  letters  from  that  England  which 
is  to  influence  so  strongly  his  whole  point  of  view. 

During  the  20  years  following  the  practical  abandonment 
of  inoculation  in  England,  and  while  next  to  nothing  was 
done  in  Europe,  events  occur  in  America  which  later  are  to 
help  considerably  towards  a revival  of  the  practice.  An 
epidemic  of  smallpox  in  Charleston  in  1738  gives  the  incen- 
tive. A surgeon,  Mowbray,  and  a Scotch  physician,  Kilpatrick 
(later  as  Kirkpatrick  one  of  the  foremost  inoculators  in 
England),  inoculate  a very  considerable  number  of  persons 
in  that  year.41  Mowbray  evidently  started  the  inoculations 

3SPhil.  Hecquet,  1661-1731. 

3JDuvrac’s  account,  1755. 

40  Cl.  de  la  Vigne  de  Frecheville,  1695-1758. 

41  Kilpatrick,  op.  cit.,  p.  44.  On  May  21,  1738,  tlie  first  three 
persons  were  inoculated  in  Charleston,  the  two  daughters  of  a 
Mrs.  Sarah  Blakeway  and  a Miss  Baker. 

(14) 


and  seems  to  have  done  the  greatest  number.  Kilpatrick’s  [74] 
account,  which  was  published  first  in  Charleston  and  then  in 
London  in  1743,  relates,  with  great  frankness,  the  successes 
and  failures  (about  800  inoculations  with  eight  deaths).42 
They  met  with  distinct  opposition,  especially  on  the  part  of 
other  practitioners.43  Kilpatrick,  in  theory,  favors  careful 
preparation  of  the  patient  before  the  operation.  His  guiding 
principle  is  the  cooling  regimen  of  Sydenham  with  a “ few 
remedies  perhaps  ” so  that  the  “ Solids  and  Fluids  may  be 
reduced  from  a greater,  to  less  Inflammability.”  His  con- 
ception, as  these  quotations  show,  is  that  of  his  time  but  he 
admits,  “ without  prejudice,  that  preparation  was  too  often 
neglected  with  us.”  We  also  learn  from  him,  and  this  is  an 
important  innovation,  that  Mowbray  very  often  inoculated 
with  the  virus  taken  from  the  pustules  of  a previous  inocula- 
tion and  that  he  repeated  the  process  up  to  six  times,44  with- 
out perceiving  any  reduction  of  virulence.  It  would  be  inter- 
esting to  enter  more  fully  into  the  excellent  observations  of 
this  essay.  They  are  distinctly  in  advance  of  the  time  and  I 
believe  mark  a more  valuable  advance  in  the  history  of  inocu- 
lation in  America  than  that  presented  in  a pamphlet  of  Dr. 
Adam  Thomson,  published  eight  years  later  and  of  which 
Dr.  Henry  Lee  Smith  4')  has  given  a full  account.  From  this 
“ discourse  ” of  Thomson’s  it  appears  that  he  had  begun  to 
inoculate  in  Philadelphia  at  about  the  same  time  when  Mow- 
bray and  Kilpatrick  started  their  experiments  in  Charleston. 

The  crux  of  his  method  is  specific  preparation,  applying 
Boerhaave’s  suggestion  that  mercury  and  antimony  may  act 
as  preventives  against  smallpox.  He  lays  greater  stress  on 
these  medicines  than  does  Kilpatrick,  otherwise  there  is  no 
difference  between  the  two  methods.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
Thomson  succeeded  in  impressing  his  patients  and  also  some 
doctors  with  his  method  of  preparation.  Dr.  Gale  of  Connec- 
ticut seems  to  have  been  his  most  enthusiastic  follower.  At 
least  I find  him  writing  to  Huxham  46  about  it : Boerhaave’s 

42  Kilpatrick,  op.  cit.,  p.  34. 

43  Kilpatrick,  op.  cit.,  p.  44,  controversy  with  Dr.  Thomas  Dale. 

44  Kilpatrick,  op.  cit.,  pp.  49  and  50. 

45  Johns  Hopkins  Hosp.  Bull.,  1909,  XX,  49. 

46  John  Andrew,  1765,  op.  cit.,  pp.  9 and  44. 

i 15) 


[74]  “ intimation  was  improved,  and  mercury  introduced  into 
practice,  by  physicians  in  the  English  American  Colonies, 
about  1745.  Several  American  physicians  claim  the  second 
glory  of  Boerhaave;  perhaps  Dr.  Thomas  (sic.)  of  Virginia, 
and  Dr.  Murison  of  Long  Island.”  Buston  47  a little  later  in 
speaking  of  this  method  ascribes  it,  as  does  Gale,  to  Murison 
and  to  Dr.  Thomson  of  Virginia.  Buston  who  is  in  favor  of 
a mild  preparation,  shies  at  this  particular  one  for  the  secret 
of  which,  he  says,  “ considerable  premiums  were  offered.” 
Ten  to  twenty  grains  of  calomel  every  other  night  counter- 
acted by  a drastic  purgative  for  two  weeks  seem  to  him 
rather  violent  as  a preparation  for  more  trouble ! 

We  are  now  nearing  the  middle  of  the  18th  century.  The 
failures  of  the  introductory  period  in  England  were  almost 
forgotten  and  Europe  in  general  was  becoming  more  and 
more  receptive  to  such  an  innovation  and,  with  the  increasing 
restlessness  of  the  age,  receptiveness  developed  into  eager- 
ness. In  England  Kilpatrick’s  essay  (1743)  on  the  experi- 
ence in  South  Carolina  was  very  largely  responsible  for  a 
revival.  He  had  arrived  himself  and  at  once  set  to  work  as 
a specialist  inoculator.  Among  those  who  followed  his 
example  are  Banby,  Middleton,  Hawkins,  Frewen,  Burges, 
Archer,  etc.  The  alleged  necessity  of  an  elaborate  course  of 
preparation  on  hygienic  and  medicinal  lines,  of  a surgical 
operation  requiring  often  a prolonged  after-treatment,  held 
out  golden  promises  to  physician,  surgeon  and  apothecary. 
Mercenary  calculation  therefore  entered  very  largely  into  the 
advocacy  of  “ preparation  ” and  deep  incisions.  It  is  well  to 
bear  this  in  mind.  Some  of  the  more  earnest  practitioners 
object  to  these  complications  but,  in  spite  of  them,  this  cum- 
bersome procedure  maintains  its  vogue  during  the  following  20 
years.  The  fact  that  it  is  very  costly  rather  increases  the  de- 
mand for  it  among  the  wealthy  and  thus  it  gains  influential 
protectors.  This  leads  to  provision  for  the  poor  and  here  the 
foundation,  under  the  patronage  of  the  Duke  of  Marlborough, 
175]  0f  the  Middlesex  County  Hospital  for  smallpox,  and  soon  after- 
wards that  of  others  in  London,48  marks  an  epoch.  There 

47  Thomas  Ruston,  op.  cit.,  p.  2. 

4S  This  hospital  changed  its  location  several  times  shortly  after 
its  opening  in  Windmill  Street,  to  Mortimer  Street  and  finally  to 

(16) 


was  little  effort  made,  at  least  at  first,  to  utilize  these  institu-  [75] 
tions  for  a scientific  study  and  an  improvement  of  variolation. 

As  each  patient,  because  of  the  preparation  before  inocula- 
tion, had  to  stay  a very  long  time,  at  least  while  a pre- 
paratory period  was  thought  to  he  necessary,  the  benefit  which 
the  poor  derived  from  these  hospitals  was  very  small,  because 
of  the  few  that  could  be  admitted. 

The  practice  of  variolation,  thus  taken  up  in  all  earnest 
by  energetic  medical  men,  prevailed  in  spite  of  the  opposi- 
tion which  continued  unabated.  The  cause  found  a very  val- 
uable champion  in  Isaac  Maddox,  Bishop  of  Worcester,  who 
in  his  sermons  intelligently  and  forcefully  recommended 
inoculation.  Another  churchman,  de  la  Faye,  on  the  other 
hand,  used  the  pulpit  for  the  fiercest  denunciation  of  inocula- 
tion and  inoculators.  In  medical  circles  all  the  questions 
involving  smallpox  and  variolation  were  ventilated.  The  war 
of  pamphlets  is  opened  by  a letter  of  one  Dod  Pierce  to 
Pierce  Dod,  physician  of  St.  Bartholomew  and  author  of 
“ Several  cases  in  physic.”  49 

In  1747  Mead’s  de  variolis  (with  the  translation  of  Rhazes’ 
commentary)  appears.  He  devotes  a brief  chapter  (V)  to 
inoculation.  He  is  decidedly  in  favor  of  it  and  does  not 

Lower  Street,  Islington.  The  other  hospital  soon  after  opened  at 
Bethnal  Green  (44  beds).  After  1750  15  patients  could  be  received, 
prepared  and  inoculated  at  the  Inoculation  Hospital  in  Old  Street, 

St.  Luke’s,  whence  they  were  taken  for  after-treatment  to  the 
hospital  at  Fray  Lane.  In  1752  the  governors  of  Charity  opened 
another  large  smallpox  hospital  at  Coldbath  Fields  (130  beds)  also 
for  preparation  previous  to  inoculation. 

49 1 do  not  find  this  delightful  biting  satire  mentioned  in  any 
history  of  inoculation  and  it  well  deserves  notice  as  it  gives  an 
invaluable  picture  of  the  manner  of  thought  among  certain 
physicians  of  the  day.  The  author,  it  may  well  be  Kirkpatrick, 
pretends  that  he  is  trying  to  expose  “ the  low  Absurdity,  or  Malice, 
of  a late  spurious  Pamphlet,  falsely  ascribed  ” to  Dr.  Dod,  and 
aims  particularly  at  his  principal  case  in  physic:  “giving  an  ac- 
count of  a person  who  was  inoculated  for  the  smallpox,  and  had  the 
smallpox  on  the  inoculation,  and  yet  had  it  again.”  With  banter 
and  derision,  jeering  and  sarcasm,  he  parodies  Dod’s  bungling, 
awkward  language,  denounces  his  absurd  reasonings  and  faulty 
observations.  (In  the  Surgeon-General’s  Catalogue  the  author  is 
given  as  W.  Barrowby.) 


(il) 


[75]  know  of  relapses  after  it.  According  to  him  the  great  ad- 
vantage of  the  inoculated  disease  over  the  natural  one  is  the 
opportunity  afforded  of  selecting  appropriate  subjects  and  pre- 
paring them  “ by  drawing  away,  where  necessary,  some  blood, 
and  gently  purging  the  humors,”  in  order  to  “ obviate  the 
violence  of  the  approaching  fever.”  He  cannot  imagine  much 
benefit  from  the  discharge  of  the  wound  of  inoculation  and  in 
general  finds  the  artificial  disease  so  mild  that  it  hardly  calls 
for  help  from  any  physician.  This  common-sense  point  of 
view  was  not  shared  by  the  majority  of  inoc-ulators,  in  whose 
interest  it  was  to  emphasize  the  importance  and  gravity  of 
the  operation.  But  Mead’s  great  influence  and  authority 
helps  to  smooth  the  path  for  the  method.  And  indeed,  all 
through  the  following  years  and  considerably  into  the  19th 
century,  we  see  variolation  in  England  in  continual  progress. 
I need  not  enter  into  the  details  of  its  historic  evolution  here, 
since  this  has  been  admirably  done  by  Creighton.  It  may 
be  sufficient  to  point  out  that  in  the  first  20  years  of  the  revival, 
during  which  the  method  was  exploited  by  more  or  less  un- 
scrupulous practitioners  as  a lucrative  occupation,  we  do  not 
find  many  evidences  of  a scientific  improvement.  In  Kirk- 
patrick, Mead  and  Frewen  we  can  already  observe  attempts  at 
simplification  and  a desire  for  a better  understanding  of  the 
fundamental  questions  involved.  But  it  is  only  after  1764 
with  the  advent  of  Gatti,  the  Suttons,  Dimsdale,  Watson, 
Mudge,  Maty,  Lettsom  and  others  that  a more  scientific, 
systematic  spirit  is  infused  into  the  growing  movement. 

The  tendency  now  becomes  manifest  to  “ prepare  ” chiefly 
by  hygienic  and  dietetic  means  and  to  abandon  frequent 
bleedings  and  violent  purgation.  The  Suttons  50  have  certainly 
a great  share  in  the  vulgarization  of  this  practice.  The 
mystery  with  which  they  surrounded  their  method  and  their 

50  Of  Robert  Sutton  we  hear  already  in  1753  as  an  inoculator  in 
Suffolk,  where  he  experiments  on  himself  and  soon  starts  the  busi- 
ness with  three  sons  and  a son-in-law,  Dr.  Hewit.  Ten  years  after- 
wards his  eldest  son  leaves  him  and  begins  on  his  own  account  at 
Ingatestone  near  Chelmsford  (Essex),  where  he  opens  a hospital 
for  inoculation  and  starts  a flourishing  enterprise  with  ramifica- 
tions all  over  Great  Britain  and  the  Continent;  his  partner  and 
assistants  were  Peale,  Worlok,  Sutherland  and  others. 


(18> 


successful  avoidance  of  accidents  were  powerful  factors  in  [75] 
their  favor.  Their  hygiene  consisted  mainly  in  a continuous 
open-air  life  before  inoculation  and  during  convalescence,  to 
which  were  joined  cold  water  applications.  The  secret  reme- 
dies which  they  administered  played  probably  an  inferior 
role  in  the  regime,  though  in  popular  belief  they  were  assigned 
an  important  position.  Their  analysis  (Euston)  showed  them 
to  contain  the  ingredients  of  Boerhaave’s  antidote  (calomel 
and  aethiops  mineralis)  and  of  the  popular  preventive  pills 
of  Schulz  and  others  (colocynth,  aloes,  cloves,  etc.). 

Of  greater  importance  in  Daniel  Sutton’s  regime  were 
probably  the  attempts  at  attenuation  of  the  virus  itself  and, 
in  this  regard,  he  probably  learned  from  others,  from  Kirk- 
patrick and  especially  from  Gatti,  although  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  he  himself  was  a capable  observer  and  experi- 
menter.51 Attenuation  of  the  virus  was  to  be  obtained  in 
various  ways : first  by  passing  it  through  several  human  sub- 
jects (Kirkpatrick’s  arm-to-arm  method),52  by  inoculating  very 
small  quantities  of  the  virus  and  particularly  by  choosing  it 
at  the  proper  moment  of  development  (the  crude,  unripe 
stage).  We  find  all  these  points  already  suggested  in  Kirk- 
patrick’s Charleston  essay  and,  in  passing,  we  may  mention 
that  Beddoes  had  tried  to  attenuate  the  virus  by  dilution  with 
water,  Woensel  by  mixing  calomel  with  it,  Kirkpatrick  pro- 
posing camphor  and  other  “ scents.”  53 

These  efforts  were  all  in  the  right  direction,  only  it 
appeared,  particularly  after  Dimsdale51  legitimized  Sutton’s  [76] 
method,  that  the  attenuation  was  often  carried  so  far  that  the 
result  of  the  inoculation  was  sufficient  to  confer  the  desired 
immunity.  Hence  examples  of  relapses  were  cited  and  Brom- 
feild  55  had  a right  to  fear  that  inoculation  might  become  dis- 
graced. 

“George  Baker  in  1766  tells  us  of  Sutton’s  attempts  at  inocu- 
lating measles  with  the  conjunctival  fluid  of  patients. 

62  Thomas  Frewen  and  others  had  already  inoculated  by  this 
method  in  1749  and  abandoned  Nettleton’s  deep  incisions.  Sutton 
seems  to  have  avoided  the  virus  from  smallpox  cases  altogether. 

53  The  admixture  of  musk  to  the  virus  practised  by  the  Chinese 
may  have  had  a similar  motive. 

M Thomas  Dimsdale,  1712-1800. 

55  William  Bromfeild,  1712-1792. 

. (19) 


[76]  Sutton,  Dimsdale  and  the  others  who  adopted  the  “new 
method  ” did  away  effectually  with  the  deep  incisions,  inaugu- 
rated by  Nettleton  and  defended  with  so  much  tenacity.  Slight 
punctures  or  scratches  were  now  found  to  be  amply  sufficient 
and  the  disagreeable  after  treatment  of  the  wounds  was  thus 
prevented.  Tronchin  introduced  the  virus  into  an  artificial 
blister,  a method  followed  extensively  on  the  Continent  and 
also  intended  to  avoid  the  prolonged  suppuration  of  the  wound. 
This  found  little  favor  in  England. 

Thus  the  operation  had  reached  a degree  of  simplicity,  and 
lessened  discomfort  and  danger,  not  thought  possible  before. 
Only  the  question  of  the  protective  value  remained  open.  We 
remember  that  vaccination  passed  through  similar  phases  and 
that  relatively  very  late  the  necessity  of  re-vaccination  be- 
came apparent.  The  test  of  repeated  inoculations  was  re- 
sorted to  quite  frequently;  we  find  reports  of  it  all  through 
the  literature  of  those  days.  But  experiments  were  also  made 
to  determine  which  part  of  the  new  regime  and  what  kind  of 
virus  guaranteed  the  success  of  the  operation.  Watson,50  who 
was  physician  at  the  Foundling  Hospital  where  all  children 
were  inoculated,  made  some  interesting  experiments  in  1767. 
Gatti  was  at  that  time  in  London  and  saw  Watson  often, 
which  makes  it  very  probable  that  he  played  some  active  part 
in  them.  Watson  chose  three  parallel  series  of  cases,  31  were 
inoculated  with  the  virus  from  a smallpox  case  in  the  ichorous 
or  watery  state,  23  from  another  inoculated  patient,  but  in 
the  purulent  state,  and  20  others  also  from  artificial  smallpox 
with  virus  “ in  perfectly  concocted  state.-”  This  latter  series 
was  not  “ prepared  ” before  inoculation,  while  the  others  went 
through  the  customary  dietetic  preparation  (10  of  the  first 
series  with  calomel  before  and  after  inoculation).  All  of  the 
patients  wrere  “ out  in  the  fields  during  the  whole  process.” 
Watson  gives  a careful  analysis  of  the  results  observed,  some 
even  in  tabulated  form,  from  which,  as  he  puts  it,  every 
person  is  at  liberty  to  make  such  deductions  as  he  may  think 
they  will  admit  of.  His  personal  conclusion  is  that  the  choice 
of  the  virus  is  not  very  material,  that  the  ichor  gives  slightly 
better  results,  that  the  mercury  has  no  specific  effect  and  only 

50  William  Watson,  1715-1787. 


(20) 


acts  favorably  as  a mild  purgative.  A well  regulated  vegetable  [76] 
diet  before  and  during  the  whole  process,  the  avoidance  of 
heated  rooms  and  heating  liquors,  he  believes  to  be  advanta- 
geous but  not  essential. 

Re-inoculation  experiments  were  undertaken  by  John 
Mudge 57  of  Plymouth.  Forty  inoculations  were  made  and 
seemed  to  demonstrate  that  “ crude  ” matter  taken  from  in- 
oculation vesicles  five  days  old  does  not  convey  immunity 
against  a re-infection  with  natural  or  inoculated  virus. 

It  is  not  evident  that  the  results  of  these  and  other  experi- 
ments exerted  any  revolutionizing  influence  on  the  method 
used  earlier,  but  they  must  have  helped  towards  perfecting 
it.  The  operation  as  then  practised  seems  to  have  given 
satisfaction,  for  inoculations  certainly  became  very  popular  in 
England,  so  much  so  that  vaccination,  in  spite  of  the  advan- 
tages which  to  us  seem  very  clear,  had  first  to  subdue  variola- 
tion before  it  could  make  any  appreciable  headway.  It  took 
'exactly  44  years  after  Jenner’s  first  vaccination,  when,  by  act 
of  Parliament,  variolation  was  declared  a felony. 

Throughout  this  stage  of  evolution  the  Continent  of  Europe, 
in  matters  of  variolation,  is  influenced  by  England.  We  see 
physicians  arrive  in  London  from  various  parts  of  Europe  to 
study  the  method  and  on  the  other  hand  professional  English 
inoculators  travel  all  over  the  Continent  to  perform  the  opera- 
tion, helping  thereby  its  introduction."8  Nowhere,  however, 
did  the  practice  reach  the  extent  it  had  in  England,  although 
there  is  more  noise  about  it  and  publications  abound.  This 
is  a curious  and  notable  fact,  particularly  when  one  considers 
that  vaccination  later  was  taken  up  in  some  continental  coun- 
tries more  immediately  and  readily  than  in  England.  The 
first  insistent  plea  for  the  introduction  of  variolation  to  the 
Continent  was  made  by  Voltaire  from  England  where  during 
his  three  years  sojourn  (after  1726)  he  had  heard  it  discussed 

57  For  details  the  original  ought  to  be  consulted,  also  Creighton 
op.  cit.,  pp.  501  and  502. 

58  See  Ebstein  (op.  cit.)  about  inoculations  by  George  Motherby 
in  Koenigsberg;  Seitz  about  Baylies  in  Germany  in  Arch.  d.  Gesch. 
d.  Med.  II,  410;  Chais  (op.  cit.)  about  Sutherland  in  Holland; 
Gardane  (op  cit.)  about  Worlok  and  Seeby  in  France;  Power  (op. 
cit.)  also  in  France. 


(21) 


[76]  and  had  seen  it  practised  in  that  country.  That  friend  of  John 
Locke’s,  Lord  Peterborough,  who,  as  we  have  seen,  had  brought 
Eller  from  Paris  to  London,  took  him  also  to  his  house.  Vol- 
taire made  himself  acquainted  with  everybody  and  everything 
with  that  eagerness  so  characteristic  of  him.  Inoculation  was 
on  the  wane  just  then,  but  its  fundamental  importance  did 
not  escape  his  keen  mind.  One  of  the  many  letters  addressed 
to  Theriot  from  England  69  is  devoted  to  the  subject  of  “ l’in- 
sertion  de  la  petite  verole.  ” It  is  a most  eloquent  appeal. 
Motives  common  to  all  people,  maternal  tenderness  and  sel- 
fish interest,60  he  says,  introduced  inoculation  to  the  Cir- 
cassians. Then,  by  experience  and  observation  of  the  dis- 
ease and  its  peculiarities,  this  primitive  people  gradually 
evolves  the  idea  of  protective  inoculation.  How  much  more 

[77]  can  an  advanced  nation  profit  from  this  by  perfecting  the 
method ! And  Voltaire  did  not,  after  the  manner  of  some 
philosophes , stop  with  this  one  dramatic  appeal.  We  find 
that  through  his  life  he  continues  to  exert  his  influence  in 
favor  of  the  method.  Thus  it  was  he  who  persuaded  Cathe- 
rine the  Great,  of  Russia,  to  undergo  the  operation.  Dimsdale 
was  called  (1768)  and  also  inoculated  the  Grand  Duke  Paul 
and  many  nobles  and  others  in  St.  Petersburg  and  Moscow. 
Returning  he  left  in  his  wake  an  inoculation  hospital  here 
and  indirectly  one  other  in  Irkutsk,  Siberia ! Indeed  an  evi- 
dence of  Voltaire’s  far-reaching  influence! 

France  was,  however,  not  yet  ready  for  inoculation.  Ouly 
20  years  later  did  it  receive  a general  consideration.  The 
reason  for  this  is  not  very  easy  to  understand.  De  Mariveaux 

69“Lettres  philosophiques,”  at  first  called  “ Lettres  sur  les 
Anglais.”  Letter  IX  written  in  1727  and  also  published  in  “ Dic- 
tionnaire  Philosophique,”  1764. 

60  The  Circassian  and  Georgian  beauties  were  much  in  demand 
for  the  Turkish  harems.  Voltaire  found  the  story  of  the  Circassian 
origin  of  inoculation  in  de  la  Motraye’s  Voyages,  etc.,  La  Haye, 
1727.  Later  travellers  in  the  Caucasus  found  nowhere  signs  of 
inoculation  being  practised  there.  Creighton  waxes  indignant 
about  this  “ myth  constructed  in  cold  blood.”  He  thinks  it  is  given 
“ as  a mere  assertion  in  the  manner  of  a philosophe  ” and  there- 
fore needs  no  refutation,  whereupon  he  proceeds  to  give  a long 
one.  Evidently  he  is  not  Voltaire’s  friend.  (Creighton,  op.  cit.,  II, 
473,  note.) 


(22) 


in  a reply  to  that  letter  of  Voltaire’s  explained  it  thus:  si  [77] 
nous  n’inoculons  pas  en  France  comme  en  Angleterre,  c’est 
parce  que  les  Anglais  se  decident  par  le  calcul,  et  nous  par  le 
sentiment.  Whatever  the  reasons  may  have  been,  the  fact  re- 
mains and  we  know  only  of  isolated  trials,  principally  in 
Paris.  We  must  note  here  one  serious  effort  which  seems  to 
have  escaped  most  historians.  Tenon,  the  excellent  surgeon 
of  the  Salpetriere,  on  his  return  from  the  campaign  in  Flan- 
ders (1745),  quietly  establishes  an  inoculation  service  in 
special  premises  annexed  to  the  hospital.  His  interest  in 
inoculation  becomes  evident  only  10  years  later  when  he 
inoculates  the  Comte  de  Chatelux,  who  in  turn  becomes  an 
ardent  champion  of  the  cause.  While  Frenchmen  on  the  whole 
were  indifferent  to  the  English  example,  the  little  republic  of 
Geneva  1,1  had  among  its  citizens  men  who  evinced  a distinct 
interest  for  everything  English.  Thus  it  may  be  explained 
how  very  early  and  determined  efforts  to  introduce  inocula- 
tion were  made  there.  Already  in  1748,  Tronc-hin,62  a Genevese 
settled  for  some  years  in  Amsterdam,  the  favorite  pupil  of  the 
old  Boerhaave,  had  inoculated  first  his  own  son  and  then  con- 
tinued the  practice  among  his  patients.  He  introduced  it  also 
to  Geneva  where,  on  a visit  in  the  summer  of  1749,  he  inocu- 
lated a nephew,  the  son  of  the  philosopher  and  magistrate 
Colandrini.  Then  the  surgeon  Guyot  began  to  inoculate  in 
September,  1750,  and  was  soon  followed  by  two  physicians, 
Cramer  and  Joly.  Trembley,  the  naturalist,  another  Gene- 
vese, had  seen  inoculations  done  in  England  and  on  the  occa- 
sion of  a visit  to  his  home  he  suggested  experiments  in  the 
hospital  which  were  undertaken  with  encouraging  results.  In 
1752  Guyot  could  report  to  Paris  on  his  first  33  cases  and 
others  give  accounts  of  even  more,  among  them  Buttini,  who 
publishes  an  excellent  essay.  The  practice  is  in  full  swing 
when  Troncliin  returns  to  Geneva  (1754)  and  strangers  flock 
into  the  town  to  be  inoculated.  In  neighboring  Lausanne 


01 L.  Gautier,  La  Medecine  a Geneve,  1906,  p.  391.  Gautier  gives 
in  this  interesting  medical  history  a full  account  of  the  progress 
of  inoculation  in  Geneva. 

62  Theodore  Tronchin,  1709-1781;  see  his  biography  hy  H.  Tron- 
chin,  Par.  1906. 


[77]  Tissot,03  who  is  already  enjoying  considerable  fame  as  a 
practitioner,  has  taken  up  inoculation  and  publishes,  in  1754, 
a treatise  which  was  to  be  one  of  the  most  read  and  quoted  in 
all  Europe.  Tissot’s  warm  friend  in  Berne,  the  great  Haller, 
has  his  own  daughter  inoculated  and  becomes  active  in  its 
recommendation.  J.  Bernoulli  does  the  same  in  Bale  and 
gives  an  address  on  the  subject  at  the  University.  Mieg  in  the 
same  town,  S.  Schinz  and  I.  K.  Kahn  in  Zurich,  report  on 
their  results,  but  nowhere  in  this  country  we  now  call  Switzer- 
land does  inoculation  flourish  as  in  Geneva,  and  it  is  here 
that  it  is  carried  to  its  logical  consequences  on  a smaller 
scale  but  to  the  same  effect  as  in  England. 

Two  other  countries,  parts  of  what  is  now  Germany 
and  Sweden,  also  obtained  their  inspirations  in  the  matter  of 
variolation  from  England.  Hanover,  belonging  to  the  English 
Crown,  saw  the  first  inoculations,  as  already  told.  Haller  was 
in  Gottingen  from  1736  to  1753.  There  had  been  a little  stir 
about  inoculation  in  Hanover  nearly  12  j^ears  before  he 
arrived,  when  Maitland  came  to  operate  on  Prince  Frederick 
and  Wreden  had  published  his  Vernunftige  Gedanlcen.  But 
those  events  were  forgotten  and  Haller  had  more  pressing 
things  to  attend  to  during  his  stay.  That  he  took  an  active 
interest  in  the  subject  becomes  evident  a few  years  after  his 
return  to  Berne  in  1753.  Another  great  man,  Haller’s 
friend  Werlhoff,04  at  Hanover,  was  present  at  the  inoculation 
of  three  other  English  princes  in  1754,  and  from  then  on  con- 
tinued to  inoculate  together  with  Berger  and  others.  Zim- 
mermann,05  who  in  1768  replaced  Werlhoff  on  the  recom- 
mendation- of  Tissot  and  Haller,  kept  up  an  interest  in  inocu- 
lation. Murray,06  in  touch  with  England  (Pringle)  and 
Sweden  (Schulz),  writes  excellent  pleas.  At  Gottingen 
several  inaugural  dissertations  were  devoted  to  the  subject 
(Grimmann,  Houth  and  others  under  Schroder)  after  Roed- 


03  S.  A.  A.  D.  Tissot,  1728-1797,  one  of  the  most  famous  prac- 
titioners and  prolific  writers  of  the  18th  century. 

04  P.  G.  Werlhoff,  1699-1767. 

65  J.  G.  Zimmermann,  1728-1795. 

06  J.  A.  M.  Murray,  1740-1797. 


ri>4> 


erer,07  Haller’s  successor,  had  shown  the  way.  Wrisberg,68  the  [77] 
eminent  anatomist,  devised  a special  instrument,  by  which  the 
depth  of  the  incision  could  be  regulated  and  we  see  later  his 
great  pupil,  Soemmerring,  as  one  of  the  earliest  and  most 
earnest  supporters  of  vaccination.  I have  already  referred  to 
the  English  itinerant  inoeulators.  At  all  the  many  little 
courts  of  Germany  we  see  them  appearing.  Baylies  60  seems 
to  have  been  the  most  active.  His  advent  marks  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  Suttonian  method  in  Germany  (announced  by 
Wichmann  in  Hanover).  Between  1767  and  1775  we  can  fol- 
low his  tracks  everywhere.  Frederick  the  Great  who,  already 
in  1755,  had  expressed  his  astonishment  that  so  little  was 
done  in  Prussia  for  a promising  method,  calls  Baylies  to 
Berlin  in  1775.  He  is  to  teach  14  physicians  from  the  pro- 
vinces his  method  in  the  hospital.  We  have  notes  on  this 
course  made  by  one  of  the  physicians  and  from  them  it  does 
not  appear  that  the  teacher  had  anything  new  to  teach.  Bay- 
lies  had  a dispute  with  Muzel,  who,  with  the  elder  Meckel,70  [78] 
had  inoculated  some  persons  several  years  before  with  very 
poor  results,  and  this  was  probably  the  cause  of  his  rather 
sudden  departure.  Other  eminent  men,  Pastor  Siissmilch,71 
the  founder  of  medical  statistics,  and  Mohsen  in  Berlin, 
Ludwig  in  Leipzig,72  Tralles  ,3  in  Breslau,  Hensler,74  the  medi- 
cal historian,  and  Juncker 74  in  a special  Archiv , plead  the  cause 
of  inoculation,  but  these  are  all  isolated  instances  without  any 
marked  practical  results,  reflecting  the  political  chaos  which 
was  only  very  gradually  focussing  itself  into  a national  unit. 

Only  during  the  last  decade  of  the  century  do  inoculations  be- 
come more  numerous  (Juncker)  but  these  are  soon  given  up 
in  favor  of  vaccination. 

67  J.  G.  Roederer,  1726-1763. 

68  H.  A.  Wrisberg,  1739-1808. 

69  Will.  Baylies  of  Bath,  1724-1789. 

70  J.  F.  Meckel,  1714-1774. 

71  J.  P.  Siissmilch,  1707-1767. 

72Chr.  G.  Ludwig,  1709-1773.  Among  his  many  writings  is  one 
of  peculiar  interest  in  regard  to  the  study  of  medicine,  De  medi- 
cinae  studio  non  praecipitando,  1772. 

73  B.  L.  Tralles,  1708-1797. 

74  P.  G.  Hensler,  1733-1805. 

75  J.  C.  W.  Juncker,  1761-1800. 


(25) 


[78]  In  Sweden  and  Denmark  also  we  see  influences  carried 
directly  from  England  and  Hanover.  Of  the  progress  in 
Sweden,  Murray  gives  an  excellent  account  and  from  Denmark 
Callisen  ‘8  is  able  to  report  numerous  inoculations.  In  both 
countries  it  is  introduced  at  about  the  same  time  (1754  to 
1756)  ; in  Sweden  by  a personal  plea  of  the  King  on  the 
advice  of  the  medical  college  and  the  support  of  eminent  men, 
among  whom  must  be  named  Rosen,  Bergius  and  Schulz,77 
the  latter  publishing  one  of  the  best  treatises  on  variolation. 
By  the  initiative  of  these  men  Sweden  was  receiving  very 
early  the  benefits  of  an  excellent  medical  and  sanitary  organ- 
ization and  inoculation  benefits  by  it.  Already  in  1757  we  see 
inoculation  hospitals  (Gotenborg)  founded  and  we  learn  from 
a letter  of  Baron  Scheffer  to  la  Condamine  that  systematic 
inoculations  in  the  public  schools  of  Stockholm  are  under- 
taken. In  Copenhagen  also  an  inoculation  hospital  is 
founded,  after  Baroness  Bernsdorff,  probably  on  the  sugges- 
tion of  Berger  of  Hanover,  her  physician,  had  submitted  her 
children  to  the  operation. 

Tronchin’s  first  inoculation  did  not  immediately  create  a 
following  in  Holland.  Only  six  years  afterwards,  in  the 
year  (1754),  when  he  was  leaving  the  country,  we  hear  of  the 
first  inoculation  performed  by  a Dutchman,78  the  excellent 
anatomist,  Thomas  Schwencke,  at  The  Hague.  In  the  same 
town  inoculation  finds  an  ardent  defender  in  Pastor  Chais 
and  one  of  its  most  formidable  opponents,  Anton  de  Haen, 
who,  however,  is  just  leaving  The  Hague  to  go  to  Vienna. 
Thanks  to  the  efforts  of  influential  scientific  men  like 
Hovius  and  Camper 78  in  Amsterdam,  the  interest  in  vario- 
lation is  preserved  and  even  carried  to  the  Dutch  Indies.80 

The  greatness  of  Dutch  medicine  slowly  vanishes  after  the 
death  of  Boerhaave.  Van  Swieten  81  rapidly  transplants  the 

78  H.  Callisen,  1740-1824. 

77  Nils  Rosen  (von  Rosenstein),  1706-1773.  P.  J.  Bergius,  1730- 
1790.  Dav.  Schulz  (von  Schulzenheim) , 1732-1823. 

78  Van  Leersum’s  account  of  inoculation  in  Holland  in  Janus, 
1910,  XV,  363. 

79  Jacob  Hovius,  1710-1786;  Petrus  Camper,  1722-1789. 

80  van  Hogendorp,  v.  d.  Steeg,  van  Nielen  (Batavia),  op.  tit. 

81  Gerard  van  Swieten,  1700-1772. 


(26) 


spirit  of  the  Leyden  school  to  Vienna.  To  count  Van  Swieten  [78] 
as  one  of  the  opponents  to  inoculation  as  is  often  done  is 
not  correct.  We  find  him  writing  on  July  23,  1755,  to  Dr. 
van  Leempoel S2  from  Vienna:  “ I am  in  favor  of  inoculation 
— and  endeavor  to  introduce  it  here,”  and  again  in  February, 
1757,  to  cle  la  Condamine  that  he  is  waiting  for  spring  to 
begin  experiments  with  it.  It  is  not  certain  that  these  trials 
were  then  made,  but  we  do  know  that  later  on  experiments 
were  certainly  made  with  his  consent  and  interested  attention. 

The  truth  of  the  matter  probably  is  that  he  kept  above  all 
parties.  De  Haen  83  on  the  contrary,  soon  after  his  arrival  in 
Vienna,  proclaimed  his  sweeping  condemnation  of  inoculation. 

In  1759,  in  his  “ Questiones,”  he  asks:  “Is  inoculation  per- 
missible before  God  ? Will  inoculated  smallpox  spare  more 
people’s  lives  than  the  natural  disease  ? Is  it  really  true  that 
almost  everyone  must  get  the  smallpox?  Is  it  not  doubtful 
whether  inoculation,  after  conveying  the  disease  or  not,  pro- 
tects against  a new  attack?”  All  these  questions  de  Haen 
answered  emphatically  in  the  negative,  but  with  little  solid 
substantiation.  His  ruthless  attack  on  the  promoters  of 
variolation  caused  a literary  stir.  Tralles  in  Breslau,  Tissot  in 
Lausanne  and  de  la  Condamine  in  Paris  answered  by  letters 
which  really  were  treatises.  De  Haen  thereupon  pronounced 
a summary  “ refutation  ” of  inoculation.  His  character  is  ex- 
tremely difficult  to  understand,  but  as  a teacher  of  great  merit 
he  undoubtedly  helped  Van  Swieten  in  the  reorganization  of 
the  medical  school,  thereby  establishing  its  fame.  Though 
ultraconservative,  still  interested  in  processes  against  witch- 
craft, which  explains  his  interest  in  the  moral  side  of  inocula- 
tion, he  was  one  of  the  first  to  utilize  the  thermometer  clini- 
cally, while  percussion,  or  Haller’s  teaching,  did  not  interest 
him.  His  bark,  however,  must  have  been  worse  than  his  bite 
for  he  does  not  seem  to  stem  the  incoming  tide  of  inoculation 
in  Vienna.  The  Empress  Maria  Theresa,  50  }rears  old,  having 
recovered  from  smallpox,  in  1767,  on  the  recommendation  of 
Pringle,  calls  Jan  Ingen-IIousz,  a Dutch  pupil  of  Dimsdale’s 
to  Vienna  for  the  inoculation  of  two  archdukes  and  one 

s- Janus,  1910,  XV,  368  (van  Leersum). 

63  Anton  de  Haen,  1704-1776. 


(27) 


[78]  archduchess.  The  satisfactory  result  of  the  operation,  after 
an  extensive  series  of  200  test  cases,  opens  the  doors  wide  to 
the  practice,  which,  particularly  at  the  hands  of  Stoerck  M and 
Locher,  receives  a thorough  application  and  investigation. 
We  have  an  excellent  account  of  this  period  of  inoculation  in 
Vienna  by  Eechberger. 

It  remains  now  to  review  the  subsequent  fate  of  variolation 
in  Paris,  and  in  France  and  those  countries  more  directly  in- 
spired from  there.  Paris  was  then,  even  more  than  it  is  now, 
the  center  of  all  activities  in  France  and  therefore  it  must 
appear  strange  that  the  most  important  local  developments  in 
regard  to  inoculation  issued  from  two  strangers,  Tronc-hin  and 

[79]  Gatti.  When  Gatti80  appeared  in  Paris  from  his  home  in 
Pisa  in  1760  he  found,  as  he  expressed  it,  “ more  brochures  for 
and  against  inoculation  than  inoculations.”  This  must  have 
been  very  near  the  truth  all  through  the  whole  period  of 
variolation  in  France,  for  nowhere  do  we  find  anything  ap- 
proaching the  number  of  inoculations  reported  in  England, 
while  we  have  to  make  our  way  through  innumerable  books, 
letters,  pamphlets,  fugitive  leaves,  etc.,  in  order  to  get  at  the 
actual  facts.  Plentiful  ideas  are  exposed  with  characteristic 
vivacity  and  sprightliness  but  reports  of  actual  experiments  are 
meager.  When  they  do  occur  they  almost  always  evince  clear 
and  penetrating  observations.  The  war  of  pamphlets  began  in 
1754,  when  de  la  Condamine66  returned  from  a voyage  of  ex- 
ploration in  South  America,  whence  he  brought  back  the  exact 
measurements  of  an  equatorial  degree,  cinchona  bark,  rubber 
and,  what  interests  us  most,  a deep  conviction  of  the  value  of 
inoculation.  A Carmelite  missionary  in  Para  had  seen  some- 
thing in  a European  gazette  about  inoculation  and,  smallpox 
being  in  evidence,  he  at  once  inoculated  his  flock  with  excel- 
lent results.  De  la  Condamine  had  seen  him  and  his  experi- 
ments and  became  convinced.  He  had  no  medical  training, 
his  leaning  was  towards  mathematics  and  he  had  entered 

o 

84  Anton  Frhr.  von  Stoerck,  1731-1803. 

“Angelo  Gatti  of  Mugello  (Tuscany)  was  professor  of  medicine 
in  Pisa. 

80  De  la  Condamine,  1701-1774.  He  bad  already,  once  before,  in 
1732,  attempted  to  interest  tbe  Academy  in  inoculation  but  failed. 


( — S ) 


the  Academy  of  Sciences,  as  lie  puts  it,  bv  the  door  of  chemis-  [70] 
try,  the  only  one  open.  On  April  24,  1754,  a memorable  day 
in  the  French  annals  of  variolation,  he  addresses,  for  the  first 
time,  the  Academy  in  favor  of  inoculation.  His  plea  is  based 
almost  entirely  on  the  English  experiences  as  given  in  Kirk- 
patrick’s “ analysis  ” and  some  later  publications  including 
the  reports  from  Geneva.  As  an  embellishment  are  used  the 
picturesque  details  of  the  “ Greek  method.”  It  is  one  of  those 
speeches  the  like  of  which  we  have  often  had  occasion  to  hear 
in  our  own  fight  against  the  “ white  plague  ” ; the  danger  is 
graphically  described,  the  simplicity  of  the  preventive  means 
outlined,  and  the  results  to  be  achieved  are  mathematically 
fixed.  “ If  inoculation  had  been  introduced  into  France  in 
1723,”  concludes  de  la  Condamine,  “ we  would  now  have  saved 
the  lives  of  about  one  million  people  without  counting  their 
offspring.”  The  effect  of  this  address  was  that  it  stirred  up 
great  interest  in  inoculation.  When  one  now  reads  the 
literature  on  inoculation  which  followed  de  la  Condamine’s 
memoire,  one  gets  the  impression  that,  almost  up  to  the  advent 
of  Dr.  Guillotin’s  little  instrument,  nothing  interested  the 
French  so  much  as  how  to  save  lives  either  with  or  without 
inoculation.  That  is  probably  what  de  Mariveaux  meant  by 
French  sentiment  as  against  English  calculi 

Actual  experiments,  however,  were  very  scarce.  People  in 
general,  even  those  who  took  de  la  Condamine’s  views  of  the 
matter,  seemed  deadly  afraid  of  the  operation.  We  hear  of 
the  inoculation  of  some  children  on  the  advice  of  Turgot,  a 
young  lawyer  and  later  a powerful  minister.  The  Marquis  de 
Chatelux  was  the  first  adult  to  go  through  the  still  dreaded 
test.8'  An  example  from  royalty  was  much  needed.  In  almost 
every  European  court  variolation  had  entered  comparatively 
easily,  probably  because  a preventive  was  most  anxiously  de- 
sired in  those  palaces  crowded  by  a suite  often  numbering 
into  the  thousands  and  thus  offering  particular  dangers.  The 

87  Button’s  words,  when  addressing  de  Chatelux  at  his  reception 
to  the  French  Academy  in  1775,  are:  “Alone,  without  advice, 

in  the  flower  of  your  youth,  but  decided  by  a maturity  of  reason, 
you  went  through  the  test  then  still  dreaded.” 


(29) 


[79]  Duke  of  Orleans,  grandson  of  the  Regent,  who,  by  his  death  in 
1723,  had  disappointed  the  early  hopes  of  inoeulators,  was  now 
determined  to  make  the  experiment  in  spite  of  small  en- 
couragement from  Louis  XV.  A friend  of  Tronchin’s,  de 
Jancourt,  probably  persuaded  him,  and  Senac,88  who  only  later 
became  an  opponent,  approved  of  it.  Tronchin  arrives  very 
quietly  and  the  operation  is  performed  towards  the  end  of 
March  on  the  two  children,  the  Duke  de  Chartres  and  Mile, 
de  Montpensier,  with  the  assistance  of  Hosty  and  Kirkpatrick. 
Everything  goes  well  and  Tronchin  is  the  hero  of  the  day. 
The  psychology  of  this  moment  and  the  individuality  of  the 
principal  actors  are  most  interestingly  analyzed  in  the 
biography  of  Tronchin 83  by  one  of  his  descendants,  re 
viewed  for  American  readers  by  Dr.  F.  C.  Shattuck.  Tron- 
chin’s stay  in  Paris  was  short,  he  departed  in  June,  but  it 
seems  that  during  that  time  he  performed  a number  of  inocu- 
lations among  the  nobility.  I am  inclined  to  think  that  the 
number  was  very  small  and  when  the  Due  de  Luynes  in  his 
memoirs  (March  28,  1756)  says:  “Tronchin  pretends  to  have 
inoculated  20,000  persons,”  someone  is  grossly  exaggerating. 
From  Tronchin,  who  was  not  given  to  writing,  we  have  no 
direct  expression,  but  Roux,  an  eye-witness,  gives  (1765)  a 
most  interesting  description  of  the  whole  method  of  treat- 
ment as  carried  out  in  the  house  Tronchin  had  hired  for  the 
purpose  of  receiving  his  patients  for  inoculation.  They  were 
“ prepared  ” for  it  by  a dietetic  regime  of  one  month.  In  the 
particular  case  cited  by  Roux  26  days  were  required  from  the 
time  of  inoculation  to  the  final  discharge,  and  10  more  for 
the  healing  of  the  wound.  There  were  some  rather  alarming 
symptoms  in  this  case  and  de  l’Epine,  referring  to  it  later, 
thinks  it  was  as  bad  as  the  real  smallpox,  but  Tronchin.  in  a 
letter  to  Morel  (1767),  says  that  the  patients  treated  by  his 


68  Jean-Baptiste  Senac, ’1693-1770. 

89  H.  Tronchin:  Un  medecin  du  XVIII  siecle,  Theodore  Tronchin 
(1709-1781),  Paris,  1906,  Plon  8°.  See  also  F.  C.  Shattuck  in 
Boston  Med.  and  Surg.  J.,  1908,  CLIX,  1-5.  A less  favorable  judg- 
ment of  Tronchin  is  to  be  found  in  a paper  by  A.  Geyl,  based  on 
Dutch  documents  (Arch.  f.  Gesch.  d.  Med.,  1908,  1,  SI,  et  seq.). 


(30) 


method  in  Paris  were  less  ill  than  those  treated  by  the  old  [79] 
method.00  One  really  cannot  wonder  that  people  did  not  take 
to  the  old  method  and  greeted  the  coming  of  Gatti  a few 


30  This  case  of  Tronchin’s  as  reported  by  Roux  (1765)  offers  so 
good  an  illustration  of  the  method  as  then  practised,  that  an 
extract  may  prove  interesting:  The  patient  is  the  son  of  d’Heri- 

court  ( intendant  de  la  marine ),  12  years  old,  delicate,  anemic. 

13.  March  1756  regime  begins,  one-half  of  ordinary  diet,  chiefly  fari- 
naceous, some  veal,  mutton,  chicken  and  vegetables. 
Every  night  tepid  foot  bath  for  one-half  hour. 

Roux  moves  with  the  young  man,  his  pupil  since  6 years, 
to  Tronchin’s  house,  where  they  sleep  together  in 
same  alcove. 

Surgeon  Saint-Martin  applies  vesicant  to  insides  of  both 
legs. 

Inoculation:  Blisters  are  opened,  threads  with  virus 
applied. 

Removal  of  threads,  bandage  with  digestive  ointment, 
continued  next  day. 

Around  each  wound  red  circle,  beginning  excavation. 
Patient  uneasy,  headache,  inguinal  glands  swell.  Up 
to  here  from  day  of  inoculation  only  vegetables,  soup 
and  barley  water  allowed. 

Glands  sensitive  and  painful,  fever  sets  in  9 a.  m.  slight. 
Fever  higher,  at  7 p.  m.  slight  delirium,  all  night  and 
next  day,  papules  on  chest. 

Slight  delirium  and  fever  until  7 p.  m.  In  morning 
slight  epistaxis.  During  this  febrile  and  eruptive 
period  only  barley  water  allowed. 

No  fever,  eruption  finished,  slight  nose-bleed. 

Papules  grow  in  size  rapidly,  some  paler.  Sixty-six  on 
face  and  as  many  on  body,  distinct  and  with  red 
circles. 

Suppuration  of  pustules,  wounds  which  were  almost 
dry  and  covered  by  brown  scab,  begin  to  suppurate 
abundantly. 

Some  pustules  begin  to  dry  up.  Saint-Martin  opens 
some  to  take  virus  on  threads. 

(22d  day  after  inoculation.)  Exsiccation  complete, 
wounds  discharge  for  15  further  days.  During  febrile 
period,  diet  same  as  before  fever  set  in. 

Slight  “ erysipelas  ” of  face  and  around  one  leg,  which 
continues  for  3 to  4 days.  “ Patient  subject  to  this.” 
No  fever.  Roux  calls  this  a benign  case.  He  mentions 
by  name  seven  other  patients  under  the  care  of 
of  Tronchin  at  the  same  time. 


10.  April. 


11.  April. 

12.  April. 

13.  April. 

18.  April. 
20.  April. 


21.  April. 

22.  April. 

23.  April. 


24.  April. 

25.  April. 


27.  April. 


28.  April. 


4.  May. 


9.  May. 


(31) 


[70]  years  later  (1760).  He  indeed  brought  simplification  and 
perhaps  went  too  far  in  the  opposite  direction,  as  some  of  his 
failures  seem  to  indicate.  Gatti  hails  from  Pisa  where  he 
held  the  chair  of  medicine  at  the  university.  He  was  brought 
[80]  to  Paris  by  his  friend  Baron  d’Holbach 01  and  inoculated  his 
children.  Well  introduced,  he  immediately  found  a great 
following.  In  1763,  1761  and  1767  he  publishes  his  ideas 
and  the  developments  and  results  of  his  method  in  a direct 
and  frank  manner,  which  contrasted  favorably  with  the  mass 
of  other  writings.  He  co-operates  with  Roux,  Antoine  Petit, 
Bordeu"2  and  others.  His  reflexions  of  1761  particularly 
maintain  a standpoint  far  in  advance  of  his  time.  He  sets 
out  with  a discussion  of  the  etiology  of  smallpox.  He  objects 
to  the  lax  conceptions  then  prevalent,  expressed  in  vague 
terms  of  fermentation,  ebullition,  effervescence,  humors, 
leaven,  germ,  etc.  They  mean  nothing.  Variola  is  always  pro- 
duced by  the  action  of  a foreign  body  introduced  into  the 
organism  from  the  outside,  by  contagion  or  other  communica- 
tion. It  is  the  constant  and  determinate  effect  of  a specific 
“ virus,”  which  reproduces  itself  and  multiplies.  He  insists 
especially  on  the  specificity.  Communication  of  the  disease 
takes  place  through  contact,  inhalation  or  ingestion.  These 
were  revolutionary  views  then,  and  to-day  we  do  not  know 
much  more  about  variola.  By  inoculation,  he  goes  on,  the 
poison  is  conveyed  by  intelligence,  in  the  natural  disease  by 
chance.  A preparation  of  a subject  for  inoculation  has  sense 
only  if  it  tends  to  improve  his  general  health;  debilitating 
measures  like  bleeding  and  purging,  as  practised  by  routine 
even  on  feeble  individuals,  have  sometimes  brought  tears  of 
pity  and  indignation  to  his  eyes.  As  to  the  choice  of  the  virus 
it  is  of  lesser  moment  whether  it  is  “ crude  ” or  “ mature  ” ; 
the  important  factor  is  that  the  individual  from  whom  it  is 
derived  be  in  good  general  health  and  free  from  other  con- 

91  P.-H.-T.  d’Holbach,  1723-1789,  of  German  origin,  hut  settled  in 
Paris.  He  achieved  some  fame  as  a sceptic  philosopher  and  enter- 
tained at  his  table  all  the  bels  esprits  of  the  day.  Galiani  called 
him  the  premier  maitre  d'hotel  de  la  philosophic. 

92Theophile  de  Bordeu,  1722-1776. 


(32) 


tagious  disease.93  It  is  best  to  obtain  the  virus  from  another  [SO] 
inoculation  and  he  replies  to  the  objection  made,  that  the 
virus  becomes  hereby  weakened : “ There  would  be  nothing 
left  to  desire  in  the  art  of  inoculation,  if  we  could  arrive  at 
attenuating  the  variolous  virus,  but  I do  not  know  any  means 
by  which  this  attenuation  can  be  accomplished.94  The  passage 
of  the  virus  through  several  organisms  may  in  time  bring 
about  a marked  decrease  of  virulence  and  he  adds  propheti- 
cally : “ Perhaps  one  day  we  may  become  indebted  to  inocula- 
tion for  having  brought  about  an  attenuation  of  this  poison 
among  men.”  It  is  of  no  advantage  to  try  and  produce  an 
abundant  crop  of  pustules,  one  well  developed  pustule  has  as 
much  protective  value  as  a thousand.  In  case  of  doubt  re- 
inoculation ought  to  be  resorted  to.  With  great  vehemence 
Gatti  turns  against  the  unscrupulous  practitioners,  who,  for 
selfish  reasons,  surround  the  method  with  all  sorts  of  compli- 
cated details;  he  proclaims  it  a very  simple  operation  and  its 
chief  principles  are  a thorough  knowledge  of  the  patient’s 
condition  and  the  art  not  to  do  harm,  partie  la  plus  fine  et 
la  plus  importante  de  la  medecine.  He  believes  also  that 
women  could  be  instructed  to  the  best  advantage  in  the 
practice  of  inoculation.  Gatti  is  absolutely  convinced  of  the 
protective  power  of  inoculated  smallpox.  He  even  substan- 
tiates this  belief  later  by  offering  a considerable  money  prize 
for  any  authenticated  case  of  re-infection  after  inoculation. 
Such  cases,  he  thinks,  can  only  happen  when  the  eruption  after 
inoculation  is  not  one  of  true  smallpox  but  is  mistaken  for  it 
(he  alludes  here  to  chickenpox).  He  admits  to  have  been 
deceived  himself.  The  celebrated  case  of  the  Duchesse  de 
Boufflers,  illustrating  such  an  instance,  hurt  Gatti’s  cause 
more  than  any  other.9'* 

93  Gatti  admits  that  other  diseases  than  variola  can  be  conveyed 
by  inoculation;  it  has  happened  to  him  with  scarlatina  and  measles. 
Consumption  (pulmonic)  he  does  not  believe  to  he  thus  transferred. 

94  “Je  suis  persuade  qu’il  serait  utile  de  pouvoir  affaiblir  la 
matiere  variolique,  qu’il  ne  resterait  plus  rien  d desirer  dans  Vart 
d’inoculer,  si  on  pouvait  y parvenir,  mats  que  je  ne  connais  aucun 
moyen  d'obtenir  cet  affaiblissement.” 

95  In  the  Gaz.  litter,  de  l’Europe,  Tome  VI,  p.  377  (also  Gent. 
Magaz.  Nov.,  1765)  is  given  a statement  of  the  case  by  the  Duchesse 


(33) 


[80]  After  a careful  consideration  of  Gatti’s  work  and  its  proper 

[81]  position  in  historical  sequence,  one  is  forced  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  reformation  which  took  place  in  the  practice  of 
inoculation  during  the  sixties  issued  from  him  and  that  the 
success  of  Daniel  Sutton  and  his  followers  is  based  on  the 
methods  advocated  by  Gatti.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  evident 
that  Gatti  later  on  adopted  some  of  the  features  of  the  Sut- 
tonian  regime,  notably  the  cold  water  applications  and  the 
open-air  life.  His  adoption  of  the  use  of  cold  water  is  no 
blind  imitation;  it  was  based  on  the  observation  that  when- 
ever the  fever,  which  usually  follows  the  local  eruption  after 
three  days,  is  delayed,  the  symptoms  of  the  disease  are  lighter. 
By  cold  water  applications  he  was  able  to  delay  the  fever 
until  the  sixth  day.  But  he  makes  no  sweeping  conclusions, 
he  insists  on  further  experiments  and  particularly  on  watching 
the  relation  of  the  local  and  general  reaction. 

The  serious  objection  against  inoculation,  that  of  in- 
creasing the  spread  of  the  disease,  Gatti  frankly  admits, 
but  he  believes  that,  since  each  infective  focus  is  known, 
proper  isolation  could  obviate  any  real  danger.  He  seems, 
however,  not  to  have  been  able  to  control  all  of  his  patients. 
That  some  of  them  had  been  seen  to  mix  unhindered  with 
others  in  public  places  was  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  govern- 
ment interference.  In  a decree  of  Parliament,  dated  June  8, 
the  General  of  Police  alludes  to  the  “ murmurs  of  the 
Public  ” at  the  indiscretion  of  certain  partisans  of  the 
method,  which  have  “ reached  our  ears.”  The  “ general  cry  ” 
raised  against  the  inoculators  makes  necessary  an  investiga- 
tion by  the  enlightened  magistrates.  The  avocat  du  Roi, 
Omer  Joly  de  Fleury,  then  further  enlarges  on  these  reasons 
and  concludes  his  address  to  the  magistrates : “ The  fact  of 
inoculation  which  now  must  fix  your  attention,  presents  itself 
naturally  from  two  points  of  view,  first  as  regards  the  prin- 
ciples of  religion,  secondly  as  regards  the  advantages  humanity 

de  Boufflers  herself.  It  is  widely  discussed  in  France  by  de  l'Epine. 
Ant.  Petit  and  de  Baux  during  the  deliberations  of  the  Faculty  of 
Medicine.  The  best  English  account,  with  Gatti’s  explanations,  is 
to  be  found  in  Langton,  op.  cit.,  pp.  18-25.  (Creighton  gives  an 
abstract  in  his  book,  II,  495.) 


(34) 


may  derive  therefrom.”  Experts  in  conscience  and  health  will  [81] 
therefore  have  to  be  consulted.  These  of  course  are  the 
Faculties  of  Theology  and  of  Medicine  respectively.  The 
medical  faculty  is  to  give  its  advice  first  and  then  submit  it 
to  the  theologians.  The  question  of  a continuation  of  a pro- 
visional tolerance  to  further  “ free  literary  discussion  and 
various  experiments  ” is  set  aside  and  it  is  decided  to  sub- 
stitute for  it  a provisional  prohibition  against  inoculating 
within  the  precincts  of  cities  and  suburbs  until  the  named 
faculties  have  been  able  to  recommend  the  permission,  or 
prohibition,  or  tolerance  of  the  practice. 

From  now  on  all  inoculations  have  to  be  done  outside  the 
barrier es  and  we  see  many  go  there,  for  the  legally  imposed 
limit  of  six  weeks,  to  submit  to  inoculation.  We  know 
of  numerous  inoculations  being  performed  under  these  restric- 
tions by  G-atti,  Petit,  Roux  and  others.  Tronchin  also  sets  up 
an  establishment  there  in  1766  and  Worlock,09  the  father-in-law 
of  Sutton,  and  an  assistant  do  the  same. 

Meanwhile  the  Faculty  of  Medicine  goes  to  work  on  its 
report.  A commission  of  twelve  members  is  appointed  and 
the  procedure  of  investigation  is  outlined.  This  same  faculty 
which  long  ago  had  approved,  then  condemned  antimony, 
and  rejected  the  discovery  of  the  circulation,  proposes  to  decide 
this  question  again  on  similar  evidence.  Not  the  slightest 
effort  is  made  to  adduce  further  experiments,  only  the  litera- 
ture is  to  be  studied  and  the  opinions  which  inoculators  out- 
side of  Paris  are  asked  to  express.  Regular  meetings  are 
held  by  the  commission,  partly  in  camera,  partly  before  the 
assembled  faculty,  and  tumultuous  scenes  occur  in  which 
parliamentary  methods  are  forgotten  and  personal  encounters 
are  threatened.  The  commissioners  soon  found  they  could 
not  agree  and  decided  to  present  two  reports  instead  of  one. 

Two  groups  of  six  each  were  formed,  one,  of  those  in  favor, 
led  by  Petit,  the  other,  of  those  against  inoculation,  headed  by 
de  FEpine."7  The  former  represented  the  younger,  more  pro- 

“li  Gardane,  Secret  des  Suttons. 

97  The  other  commissioners  in  favor  of  inoculation  with  Antoine 
Petit  were  E.  L.  Geoffroy,  A.  C.  Lorry,  Maloet,  Thiery  and  Cochu, 
while  the  opponents  under  G.  J.  de  l’Epine’s  lead  were,  Jean  Astruc, 

M.  P.  Bouvart,  Th.  Baron,  J.  Verdelhan  de  Miles  and  H.  J.  Mocquart. 

(35) 


[81]  gressive,  the  latter  the  older,  conservative  elements.  Only 
15  months  after  the  parliamentary  decree  could  the  reports 
be  presented  before  the  assembled  faculty  for  the  first  reading 
and,  after  acceptance,  be  put  into  the  printer’s  hands.  The 
publication,  however,  was  delayed  until  1766  and  supplements 
were  added  as  late  as  1767.  The  report  of  de  l’Epine  would 
do  honor  to  any  prosecuting  attorney;  as  such  it  is  a very 
clever  presentation  of  the  case  against  inoculation.  It  occu- 
pies 125  quarto  pages,  mostly  filled  by  the  bibliographic  re- 
views of  the  literature  in  fine  print.88  The  main  points  are 
that  smallpox  is  not  so  dangerous  a disease  as  is  usuallv 
asserted.  De  Haim  had  treated  120  cases  with  only  five  deaths, 
which  may  be  explained  as  due  to  other  causes.  Bad  treat- 
ment is  at  the  bottom  of  most  deaths.  Furthermore  many 
people  never  get  smallpox  and  a fatal  inoculation  might  strike 
just  those.  One  such  case  is  enough  to  condemn  inoculation. 
Much  is  made  of  one  of  Gatti’s  failures  and  of  the  Boston 
reports  (Delahonde)  of  an  increase  of  smallpox  following 
inoculation.  In  conclusion  an  attempt  is  made  to  show  that 
the  provisional  prohibition  has  had  already  a favorable  influ- 
ence on  the  general  health  in  Paris  and  “ one  begins  to 
breathe  again.  The  epidemic,  no  longer  nourished  and 
perpetuated  by  this  unfortunate  practice,  has  lost  much  of  its 
force  and  is  notably  diminished.”  89 

De  l’Epine  in  his  closing  remarks  suggests  that  the  method 


08  Three  separate  sessions  of  the  faculty  were  needed  for  the 
reading  of  this  part  of  the  report,  viz.,  Oct.  20,  22  and  24,  1764. 

9“  The  summary  of  the  conclusions  is  given  in  “ nine  incontest- 
able truths”  as  follows: 

1.  Incertitude  of  conveying  smallpox  by  inoculation,  even  if 

repeated. 

2.  Unsuccessful  inoculation  does  not  protect  in  future. 

3.  If  successful  there  is  no  guarantee  that  attack  will  be  benign. 

4.  If  death  is  not  issue,  frequent  disturbances  may  follow. 

5.  Same  risks  as  in  natural  smallpox,  disfiguration,  etc. 

6.  Escape  from  death  after  inoculation  insures  no  protection 

against  other  often  more  dangerous  attacks. 

7.  Other  diseases  may  be  conveyed  through  inoculation. 

8.  Inoculated  smallpox  is  sometimes  fatal. 

9.  It  can  infect  others  and  thus  endanger  society. 


(36) 


is  perhaps  not  sufficiently  perfected  and  hopes  that  the  English  [82] 
may  succeed,  then  “ we  shall  thank  heaven  for  such  a precious 
discovery  and  we  shall  render  them  due  homage  for  the  en- 
lightenment which  they  have  procured  for  us  at  their  risk. 

It  would  be  unjust  for  us  to  envy  them  the  very  legitimate 
advantage  of  enjoying  the  first  fruits,  reaped  under  such  peri- 
lous circumstances.”  The  inevitable  advice  of  these  six  com- 
missioners is  neither  to  permit  nor  to  tolerate  inoculation. 

Of  the  signers  of  this  verdict  Astruc  100  was  undoubtedly  the 
most  famous  and  influential.  Eighty  years  old  and  only  two 
years  before  his  death,  it  cannot  be  presumed,  however,  that 
he  took  a very  active  part  in  the  composition  of  this  report. 
Bouvart,101  another  member,  we  can  safely  make  responsible 
for  several  of  the  more  extreme  attacks  against  the  inocu- 
lators.  He  was  a violent  antagonist  of  Tronchin’s,  whose 
book  on  the  colic  of  Poitou  he  had  tried  to  drown  under  a 
flood  of  ridicule  and  unjust  criticism,  and  with  Petit,  the 
editor  of  the  other  report,  he  had  had  a quarrel  about  the 
very  important  question  of  belated  childbirth.102 

The  report  of  the  other  party,  edited  by  Petit,103  is  not 
nearly  as  carefully  prepared  as  the  de  l’Epine  document.  One 
feels  that  it  is  written  by  a busy  practitioner  who  has  little 
time  and  inclination  to  enter  into  all  the  subtleties  intro- 
duced. He  judges  from  what  he  has  seen,  simply  brushing 
aside  the  objections.  It  is  not  nearly  as  convincing  for  the 
casual  reader  as  the  other,  in  which  almost  all  the  reports  of 
inoculators  are  dexterously  turned  against  themselves,  thus 
exhibiting  a formidable  array  of  damaging  testimony.  Petit 
did  not  follow  such  tactics  in  his  first  report,  but,  seeing  that 
he  had  failed  to  make  an  impression,  comes  out  in  1766  with 
a second  report  in  which  he  shows  the  malice  of  de  l’Epine’s 
method.  He  points  out  the  “ multiple  errors  and  mistakes  of 
all  sorts  ” and  these  become  evident  enough  when  one  com- 
pares them  with  the  sources. 

100  Jean  Astruc,  1684-1766. 

101  M.-P.  Bouvart,  1717-1787. 

10-  The  contention  was  about  the  legitimacy  of  a child  born  after 
an  11%  months  pregnancy  and  10%  months  after  the  death  of  the 
76-year-old  father. 

103  Antoine  Petit.  1718-1794. 


(37) 


This  second  report  is  signed  by  only  three  of  the  commis- 
sioners besides  Petit,  viz.,  Geoffroy,  Lorry  and  Maloet,104  the 
other  two  are  absent  and  the  Doyen  Belleteste  and  the  censor 
Le  Thieullier  therefore  sign  in  their  stead. 

The  endless  discussions 1,13  about  the  merits  of  inoculation 
during  these  several  years  must  have  exhausted  the  interest  in 
the  subject  and  indeed,  after  the  assembled  faculty  had  ex- 
pressed itself  in  favor  of  the  tolerance  of  inoculation  under 
certain  restrictions  by  52  votes  against  26,  we  hear  little  more 
on  the  subject.  Petit,  in  a later  letter  to  the  Doyen  of  the 
Faculty,  thinks  that,  up  to  the  end  of  1766,  probably  15,000 
inoculations  had  been  performed  in  France,  which  seems  little 
against  the  200,000  reported  from  England.  Although  the 
acuteness  of  popular  interest106  had  subsided,  we  have  good 
reason  to  assume  that  inoculation  was  continued  in  Paris  and 
the  provinces  on  a much  larger  scale.  We  have,  however,  no 
evidence  that  anything  was  done,  as  in  England,  to  further 
study  and  develop  the  method.107  We  should  naturally  expect 
to  hear  of  Gatti’s  further  work,  but  there  is  very  little  to  be 
found  about  him.  In  1769  he  receives  permission  to  inoculate 
in  the  military  college,  but  of  his  results  and  the  details  of  his 
work  I have  been  unable  to  detect  traces.  Louis  XV  dies  of 
smallpox  in  1774  and  this  event  decides  his  grandson  and 
successor,  Louis  XVI,  to  submit  himself  as  well  as  his  family 
to  inoculation.  Neither  with  Louis  XV’s  illness  nor  with  this 
inoculation  do  we  find  Gatti’s  name  connected,  although  he 

IM  Etienne-Louis  Geoffroy,  1725-1810,  for  40  years  one  of  the  most 
prominent  Paris  physicians;  Anne-Charles  Lorry  1726-17SG,  good 
observer  and  medical  historian  of  merit;  P.  L.  Maloet,  1730-1810, 
able  practitioner. 

105  Dubourg,  op.  cit. 

106  John  Wilkes  during  his  exile  in  Paris  seems  to  have  become 
interested  in  inoculation  to  the  extent  of  writing  a farce  about  it 
(op.  cit.). 

107  The  principal  clinical  reports  of  this  time,  besides  the  ones 
already  cited,  are  those  of  Robert,  Rast,  Grassot,  Rasoux.  Dezoteux, 
Le  Camus,  Gardane,  Gandoger  de  Foigny,  Mangin,  Vernage  (op. 
cit.).  Theophile  de  Bordeu,  the  founder  of  the  theory  of  “vital- 
ism” publishes  (op.  cit.),  in  defence  of  inoculation,  a long  his- 
torical treatise,  in  which  he  analyses  what  attitude  the  founders 
of  all  the  medical  doctrines  since  Hippocrates  might  have  assumed 
in  regard  to  inoculation. 


(3S) 


was  physician  extraordinary  to  the  King.108  Gatti’s  appear-  [82] 
ance  and  activity  marks  the  greatest  advance  in  variolation 
which  was  reached  in  France  and,  as  a matter  of  fact,  any- 
where. His  ideas  and  methods  were  those  of  the  best  scien- 
tists at  the  end  of  the  19th  century  and  it  is  indeed  remark- 
able how  little  his  work  is  remembered.103 

In  England,  and  to  some  extent  also  on  the  Continent,  after 
the  technical  principles  of  variolation  became  fairly  well  un- 
derstood, we  can  see  developing  round  it  a social  movement 
for  the  eradication  of  smallpox  very  similar  to  the  tuberculosis 
crusade  of  our  days.  I have  already  alluded  to  the  hygienic 
features  in  the  regimen ; they  were  enlarged  upon  and  general- 
ized for  a wider  application.  Segregation  of  the  infected 
cases  was  insisted  upon  more  strongly  than  before.  Early 
inoculation  of  infants  was  advocated  by  Maty  and  more  em- 
phatically by  Lettsom.  The  demands  for  inoculation  dispen- 
saries became  very  loud  and  several  were  established  (John 
Clark  at  Newcastle,  Haygarth  at  Chester,  etc.).  The  number 
of  inoculations  practised  was  exceedingly  great.  It  went  to 
many  thousands  per  year.  We  have,  of  course,  no  accurate  re- 
ports about  it.  But  already  in  1766  (Houlton)  we  hear  that 
Bobert  Sutton  had  inoculated  2514  persons  from  1757  to  [83] 
1767  and  Daniel  13,792  from  1764  to  1766  and  his  assistants 
6000  more.110  As  late  as  1821  to  1822  John  Forbes  tells  us 
that  a farmer,  Pearce  and  son,  of  Busham  (Sussex)  associated 
with  some  surgeons  inoculated  13,000  persons ! 

Jenner’s  (born  in  1749)  interest  in  the  subject  dates  from 

I0S  Report  by  de  Lassone  (op.  cit.). 

109  In  his  own  country,  Italy,  he  does  not  seem  to  have  exerted 
any  great  influence  in  favor  of  variolation.  The  considerable  de- 
velopment which  it  reached  there  was  inspired  chiefly  from  France, 
Switzerland  and  Austria.  The  personal  initiative  of  the  Marchese 
Bufalini  in  Rome  in  1754,  the  opposition  of  the  Papal  physician, 
Zanettini,  and  of  Dr.  Roncalli  Parolino,  and  Tronchin’s  inocula- 
tion of  a Bourbon  prince  in  Parma  are  the  main  events  of  the 
Italian  history  of  variolation.  The  most  active  Italian  inocula- 
tors  were  Peverini,  Lunadei,  Lavizzari,  Caluri,  Targione,  Manetti, 

Berzi,  Bicetti  (op.  cit.).  In  Spain  there  seems  to  have  teen  only 
a literary  reflex  of  the  French  efforts. 

119  His  income  for  1764  is  given  as  £2200  and  for  1765  as  £6300. 


(39) 


[83]  this  period.  John  Hunter  had  told  him  already  not  to  specu- 
late but  to  observe  and  prove.  With  his  natural  gifts,  with  the 
inspiration  of  that  particular  period  and  the  opportunities  of 
his  home  surroundings  it  was  inevitable  that  he  should  make 
the  greatest  improvement  in  the  method  of  inoculation. 

In  following  variolation  on  its  course  through  the  civilized 
world  of  the  18th  century  and,  in  noting  the  successive  steps 
of  its  evolution,  it  has  been  my  aim  rather  to  open  avenues  for 
future  research  than  to  give  a complete  and  detailed  account 
of  the  more  important  phases.  Plentiful  suggestions  are  to 
be  found  everywhere  which  lead  one  to  infer  that  variolation, 
without  the  advent  of  vaccination,  might  have  furnished  the 
world  with  an  equally  safe  and  perhaps  more  efficient  method 
of  preventive  immunization.  We  have  every  reason,  however, 
to  be  satisfied  with  the  results  of  vaccination.  Thanks  to  it 
smallpox  has  been  practically  stricken  off  the  list  of  the  great 
medical  problems.  Hone  the  less  it  is  time  that  the  epoch 
which  preceded  vaccination  should  receive  its  proper  place  in 
the  history  of  medicine,  and  that  the  names  of  Kirkpatrick, 
Gatti,  Watson,  Mudge  and  Dimsdale  should  be  recalled  with 
that  of  Edward  Jenner. 


(40) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  VARIOLATION. 


[Note. — In  these  lists,  English,  German,  French  or  other  trans- 
lations are  indicated  by  E.,  G.,  F.,  . . . respectively,  with  dates. 
The  American  tracts  and  pamphlets  of  the  eighteenth  century 
are  subjoined  as  “ Americana.”  Certain  of  these  which  have  been 
brought  to  light  and  identified  in  Professor  Kittredge’s  interesting 
paper,  “ Some  Lost  Works  of  Cotton  Mather  ” [Proc.  Mass.  Histor. 
Soc.,  Feb.  1912,  pp.  418-479],  are  marked  “ K.”  A star  (*)  denotes 
an  inaugural  dissertation  or  thesis.] 

I.  XVIII  Century  Literature. 

Aberdour  (A.):  Observations  on  the  small-pox  and  inoculation. 
8°.  Edinburgh,.  1792. 

Accademia  delle  scienze  di  Siena  detta  de’  fisiocritici.  Gli  atti 
dell’  . . . dell’  anno  1760.  Tomo  i.  (Storia  generale  degl’  innesti 
del  vajuolo  fatti  in  Siena  dall’  anno  1758,  fino  a tutto  il  1760.) 
4°.  Siena,  1761. 

Ackermann  (J.  F.):  De  insitione  variolarum  commentatio 

epistolaris.  Gottingen,  1771. 

d’Alembert  (L.  le  R.) : Inoculation.  Opuscules  mathem.  1765, 
T.  II  and  IV,  p.  329.  (S.  also  J.  de  med.,  chir.,  pharm.,  etc.  Par. 

1761,  XIV,  73-82.) 

Alexander  (S.)  : Observationes  quaedam  circa  variolarum  in- 

sitionem.  Sm.  4°.  Duisburgi  (1797). 

Almroth  (N.):  In  variolarum  insitionem  observationes.  Sm. 

4°.  Upsalise  (1788). 

Andrew  (John)  : The  practice  of  inoculation  impartially  con- 

sidered. Letter  to  Sir  Edward  Wilmot,  Bart.,  to  which  are  added 
the  sentiments  of  Dr.  Huxham  and  several  other  physicians,  as 
communicated  to  the  author.  Exeter,  1765. 

Augier  (C.  J.) : Prolusio  medica,  an  inoculatio  tutissima  sit 

prophilaxis  adversus  instans  a variolis  periculum?  4°.  Aran- 
sione,  1783. 

Avis  aux  peres  et  meres,  sur  l’inoculation  de  la  petite  verole. 
8°.  (n.  p.,  n.  d.) 

Baader  (F.  M.) : Vertraute  Briefe  fiber  eine  ganz  unerhorte 

und  nachtheilige  Pockenkur.  Verm.  u.  verbess.  Ausg.  Mtinchen, 
1779. 

Bachmetiev  (G.)  : De  variolis  inserendis.  8°.  Edinburgh  1786. 


(41) 


Baeck  (Abraham):  Ta]  om  farsoter,  som  mast  harja  ibland 

rikets  allmoge;  hallit  tor  Kongl.  Vetensk.  Ac-ademien,  vid  Prae- 
sidii  nedlaggande  den  25.  Julii,  1764.  Stockholm,  1765. 

Baetge  (J.  C.):  De  variolarum  lue  insitionis  beneficio  pro- 

scribenda.  8°.  Traj.  ad  Viadr.,  1798. 

Bagard  (C. ):  Discours  sur  l’inoculation  de  la  petite  verole, 

qui  a ete  lu  dans  la  seance  publique  de  l’Academie  en  1755,  que 
le  Roi  de  Pologne  honora  de  sa  presence.  Nancy,  1755. 

Baker  (Sir  George):  An  inquiry  into  the  merits  of  a method 
of  inoculating  the  small-pox,  which  is  now  practised  in  several 
counties  of  England.  1.  and  2.  ed.  London,  1766.  (S.  also  Med. 

Jour.  Roy.  Coll.  Phys.,  London,  1772,  ii,  275.) 

Balz  (J.  F.):  De  praestantiore  variolas,  vesicatorii  ope,  in- 

serendi  methodo.  Sm.  4°.  Stuttgardise,  1792. 

Bandelow  (A.  D. ):  Ueber  die  Pocken  und  ihre  Einimpfung. 

Dessau,  1792. 

Barker  (J. ):  The  nature  of  inoculation  explained  and  its 

merits  stated  (etc.).  8°.  London,  1769. 

Baumer  (J.  G.)  : (Pr. ) monita  qusedam  de  variolis  earumque 

curatione  ac  insitione.  4°.  Giessae  Cattorum,  1776. 

de  Baux  (P. ):  Parallele  de  la  petite  verole  naturelle,  avec 

l’artificielle,  ou  inoculee,  avec  un  traite  intermediate  de  la  petite 
verole  fausse,  volante,  ou  adulterine.  Avignon.  1761. 

Baylies  (Will.):  Kurze  Satze  fiber  die  Pocken.  Aus  d.  Engl, 
von.  A.  B.  Kolpin.  Berl.  u.  Stettin,  1775. 

Baylies  (Will.):  Memoire  concernant  l’etat  de  l’inoculation  de 
la  petite  verole  a Berlin.  Dresden,  1776.  (Engl.,  Edinb.,  1781.) 

Beer  (F.  G.):  * De  variolarum  exstirpatione  insitioni  sub- 

stituenda.  (Praeses  Krause.)  Lipsise,  1762. 

Bergius  (P.  I.):  Kon  om  en  kopposmitta,  som  liknar  ympning, 
jamte  skal  til  koppo-ympningens  antagande  har  i riket.  Hand- 
lingar,  1756. 

Bergius  (P.  I.):  Ron  ech  Anmarkningar  om  en  midt  uti  en 
Koppympning  inkommen  Masslingssmitta.  Kgl.  Vetenskaps 
Academiens  Handlingar,  1776. 

Bernoulli  (Dan.):  Rapport  sur  l’inoculation  (1760).  Acad.  d. 
sc.  Par.,  1765.  (Also  Hist.  Acad.  roy.  d.  sc.,  1760.  Par.,  1766, 
pt.  2,  1-45.) 

Berzi  (F.) : Nuova  scoperta  a felicemente  suscitare  il  vajuolo 
per  artificioso  contatto.  Padova,  1758. 

Bewahrung,  dass  die  Einpfropfung  der  Blattern  nicht  nur 
nicht  wider  die  Religion  und  Vernunft  ist,  sondern  vielmehr  dem 
Gehorsam  gegen  beide  zur  Pflicht  oblieget.  1768.  [From  the 
English.] 

Bicetti  de’  Buttinoni  (G.)  : Osservazioni  sopra  alcuno  innesto 
di  vajuolo  e un’  ode  dell’  Ab.  Farini  su  lo  stesso  argomento. 
Milano,  1765. 


(42) 


Bicker  (L.) : Vertoog  van  de  voornaamste  redenen,  welken  de 
ingezetenen  van  ons  land,  tot  hier  toe,  van  de  inenting  der  kinder- 
pokjes  wederhouden,  en  oorzaak  zijn,  dat  deze  praktijk  niet 
algemeen  bij  ons  in  gebruik  kome.  8°.  Rotterdam,  1777. 

de  Bienville  (D.  T.) : Le  pour  et  le  contre  de  l’inoculation,  ou 
dissertation  sur  les  opinions  des  sgavants  et  du  peule  (sic),  sur 
la  nature  et  les  effets  de  ce  remede.  12°.  (n.  p.,  n.  d.) 

Billant  (J.):  Dissertation  sur  l’ancienne  et  la  nouvelle  in- 

oculation. 4°.  Paris,  1806. 

Blackmore  (Sir  Richard):  Treatise  upon  the  small-pox,  in  two 
parts.  Lond.,  1723. 

Blake  ( J.)  : A letter  to  a surgeon  on  inoculation,  containing 

remarks  on  Dr.  Dimsdale’s  pamphlet  upon  that  subject  (etc.). 
8°.  London,  1771. 

Boeckmann  (Otto  Reinhold) : Dissertatio.  Om  formon  af 

kopp-ympningens  vidtagande  i Finland,  under  Oec.  Direct.  Chem. 
Prof.,  etc.  Hr.  Pehr  Adrian  Gadds  inseende  for  lager-krantsen 
utgifven  och  forfvarad.  Abo  d.  4.  Jul.,  1763. 

Boehme  (I.  A.  B.) : * De  nonnullis  ad  morbillorum  insitionem 
spectantibus.  (Prses.  A.  E.  Buchner.)  Magdeburg,  1766. 

Bond  (Thomas) : Defense  de  l’inoculation  et  relation  des  pro- 
gres  qu’elle  a fait  a Philadelphia  en  1758.  Strassburg,  1784.  (G. 

1787.) 

deBordeu  (Theophile) : Recherches  sur  quelques  points  d’histoire 
de  la  medecine  qui  peuvent  avoir  rapport  a l’Arret  de  la  Grande 
Chambre  du  Parlement  de  Paris,  concernant  l’inoculation,  et  qui 
paroissent  favorable  a la  tolerance  de  cette  operation.  Liege, 
1764.  (Re-ed.  1882,  Par.) 

Boretius  (M.  E.) : Observationum  exoticarum  specimen  primum, 
sistens  famosam  Anglorum  variolas  per  inoculationem  excitandi 
methodum,  cum  ejusdem  phasnomenis  et  successibus;  prout  nempe 
in  carcere  Londinense  (Newgate  vulgo)  auctoritate  publica  in  sex 
personis  capite  damnatis  feliciter  fuit  instituta  (etc.).  4°.  Regi- 
omonti,  1722.  Also  in  Haller:  Disp.  ad  morb.  (etc.).  4°.  Lausan- 
ne, 1758,  v.  671-682. 

von  Borstel  (H.  H.)  : Dis.  med.  exhibens  ephemeridem  vari- 

olarum  corpori  proprio  insitarum.  4°.  Gottingae,  1765. 

Bosch  (Jac.  Imm.)  : Abhandlung  iiber  die  wahre  Beschaffenheit 
der  Kinderpocken  und  ihre  allmahlige  und  gewisse  Heilung.  a.  d. 
Holland.  Stendal,  1792. 

Boyer  (J.  B.  N.):  These  sur  l’inoculation,  Montpellier,  1717. 

Brady  (S.):  Some  remarks  upon  Dr.  Wagstaffe’s  letter,  and 

Mr.  Massey’s  sermon  against  inoculating  the  small-pox;  with  an 
account  of  the  inoculation  of  several  children,  and  some  reasons 
for  the  safety  and  security  of  that  practice,  in  three  letters  to  a 
friend.  8°.  London,  1722. 


(43) 


Bromfeild  (W.):  Thoughts  arising  from  experience,  concerning 
the  present  peculiar  method  of  treating  persons  inoculated  for 
small-pox  (etc.)-  Loud.,  1767. 

Buonanni  (M.):  Rapporto  (i-iii)  delle  osservazioni  occorse  nell’ 
innesto  del  vaiuolo.  4°.  Napoli,  1772-5-8. 

Burges  (James) : An  account  of  the  preparation  and  manage- 
ment necessary  to  inoculation.  London,  1754. 

Butini  ( J.  A.) : Traite  de  la  petite  verole  communiquee  par 
l’inoculation.  Paris,  1752.  (Danish,  Kopenhag,  1753.) 

Caldani  (L.  M.  A.):  Innesto  felice  di  vajuolo  instituito  e de- 
scritto.  Padova,  1768. 

Caluri  ( F. ) : Dell’  innesto  del  vajuolo.  Siena,  1760. 

Camper  (P.):  Aanmerkingen  over  de  inentinge  der  kinder- 

ziekte  (etc.).  Leeuwaarden,  1770.  (G.  1772.) 

Camper  ( P. ) : Les  avantages  de  l’inoculation,  et  de  la  meilleur 
methode  de  l’administrer.  8°.  Toulouse,  1772. 

Camper  ( P. ) : De  emolument  et  optima  methodo  insitionis 

variolarum  [1772].  Groning.,  1774.  2d  ed.,  Leiden,  1789. 

Camus  (Ant.  Le) : Projet  d’aneantir  la  petite  verole.  Paris,  1767. 

“Candide”:  Avis  sur  l’inoculation  de  la  petite  verole.  Paris, 
1763. 

Cantwel  (A.):  Dissertation  sur  l’inoculation,  pour  servir  de 

reponse  a celle  de  M.  de  la  Condamine,  sur  le  meme  sujet.  Paris, 

1755. 

Cantwel  (A.):  Lettre  a M.  de  . . . Avocat  en  Parlement.  Paris, 

1756. 

Carstens  (C.  A.):  De  insitione  variolarum.  Sm.  4°.  Kilise, 

1768. 

de  Castilla  (P.  F.)  : El  mundo  enganado  por  la  inoculation  de 
las  viruelas.  Cadiz,  1789. 

a Castro  (Jacob):  Verhandeling  over  de  nieuwe  veylige  en 

vorderlyke  methode  of  wyse  om  de  pokjes  te  oculeeren  of  inteen- 
ten.  Amsterdam,  1722. 

a Castro  (J. ):  Dissertatio  in  novam.  tutam,  ac  utilem  me- 

thodum  inoculationis  seu  transplantationis  variolarum,  Thessalia. 
Constantinopoli  et  Venetiis  primo  inventam,  nuncque  in  hac 
civitate,  auctoritate  Regiae  Majestatis  Brittanies  c-omprobatam, 
28.  Julii,  1721.  3.  ed.  8°.  Londini,  1731. 

de  Castro  (J.  P.):  Diss.  utrum  ad  insitionem  in  variola  necne 
debeat  confugi  ostendens.  8°.  Edinburgi,  1793. 

Chais  (C.) : Essai  apologetique  sur  la  methode  de  communiquer 
la  petite  verole  par  l’inoculation  (etc.).  La  Haye,  1754.  (Repr. 
1775.  G.  1774/5.  Sw.  1756.) 

Chais  (C. ):  Lettre  a Dr.  Sutherland,  associe  de  M.  Sutton,  sur 
la  nouvelle  methode  d’inoculer  la  petite  verole,  et  reponse  du 
Dr.  Sutherland.  La  Haye,  1768. 


(44) 


Chandler  (Benjamin):  An  essay  on  the  present  method  of  in- 
oculation. London,  1767. 

Chatelux  (Le  Chev.) : Nouveaux  eclaircissements  sur  l’in- 

oculation  de  la  petite  verole,  pour  servir  de  reponse  a un  ecrit 
de  M.  Rast.  1763. 

Chatelux  (Le  Chev.) : Reponse  a une  des  principales  objections 
qu’on  oppose  maintenant  aux  partisans  de  l’inoculation  de  la 
petite  verole.  Paris,  1764. 

Clark  ( J. ) : Report  of  the  Newcastle  Dispensary.  1789. 

Cleland  (G.):  * De  variolarum  insitione.  Lugd.  Bat.,  1776. 

Clinch  (W.) : Rise  and  progress  of  the  small-pox,  with  an 

appendix  to  prove  that  inoculation  is  no  security  from  the  natural 
small-pox.  London,  1724,  1725,  1733. 

Clossius  ( Joh.  Fr.)  : Nova  variolis  medendi  ratio.  Amstel- 

odami,  1766.  (G.  1769.) 

de  la  Condamine:  Memoire  sur  l’inoculation  de  la  petite  verole, 
lu  a l’assemblee  publique  de  l’Academie  royale  des  sciences,  le 
24  avril,  1754.  Paris,  1754.  Avignon,  1755.  (E.  Lond.,  1755, 

New  Haven,  1773.) 

de  la  Condamine:  Second  memoire  sur  l’inoculation  de  la  petite 
verole,  contenant  son  histoire  depuis  l’annee  1754,  lu  le  15  novem- 
bre,  1758.  Geneve,  1759.  (Also  Collect,  acad.  d.  mem.,  etc.,  Par., 
1786,  XII,  415-418.) 

de  la  Condamine:  Lettre  a M.  . . . Conseiller  a P.  d.  D.,  servant 
de  reponse  a la  lettre  de  M.  Gaulard  sur  la  maladie  du  fils  de  M. 
Delatour.  (Mercure  de  France,  fevrier,  1759.)  Merc,  de  Fr.  de 
juin,  1759. 

de  la  Condamine:  Seconde  lettre  a M.  . . . Conseiller  a P.  d.  D. 
pour  servir  de  reponse  a la  seconde  lettre  de  M.  Gaulard  et  a 
son  defi.  (Mercure  d’aout,  1759.)  Merc,  de  Fr.  de  sept.,  1759. 

de  la  Condamine:  Lettres  a M.  Daniel  Bernoulli.  Mercure  de 
France  de  mars  et  d’avril,  1760. 

de  la  Condamine:  Lettres  a M.  le  Dr.  Maty  sur  l’etat  present 
de  l’inoculation  en  France:  I.  Sur  la  defense  provisoire  de  l’in- 
oculation,  p.  1.  II.  Sur  l’avis  demande  par  le  Parlement  aux 
Faeultes  de  medecine  et  de  theologie  au  sujet  de  1'inoculation,  p. 
33.  III.  Sur  ce  qu’on  doit  attendre  de  l’arret  definitif  du  Parle- 
ment au  sujet  de  1’inoculation,  p.  69.  IV.  Notice  des  ouvrages  qui 
ont  paru,  depuis  un  an,  pour  ou  contre  1’inoculation,  p.  101.  V. 
Sur  les  trois  dernieres  assemblies  de  la  Facuite  de  Medecine,  etc., 
p.  157.  Paris,  1764. 

de  la  Condamine:  Memoires  pour  servir  a l’histoire  de  l’in- 
oculation de  la  petite  verole,  lus  a l’Academie  royale  des  sciences 
en  1754,  1758  et  1765.  4°.  Paris,  1768. 

de  la  Condamine:  Histoire  de  1’inoculation.  2 vols.  Amst.,  1773. 
Paris,  1776. 


(45) 


de  la  Coste:  Lettre  a M.  Dodart  sur  1’inoculation  de  la  petite 
verole,  comme  elle  se  pratique  en  Turquie  et  en  Angleterre.  1723. 
Appendix:  Sloane,  Amyand. 

Cotugni  (D.):  De  sedibus  variolarum  syntagma.  Viennse,  1771. 

Cox  (Daniel):  A letter  to  a friend  on  the  subject  of  inocula- 
tion. London.  1757. 

Cramer  (A.  G.):  Curiosa  variolarum  per  insitionem  nostri 

temporis  prophylaxis,  sive  die  Einpfropfung  der  Kinder-Blattern. 
etc.  Erfordi®,  1726. 

Cramer  and  Joly  (Geneve) : Lettre  sur  l’inoculation.  Journal 
de  Neuchatel,  aout,  1751. 

Crantz  (Henricus  Joannes  Nepomuc.) : Lettre  a M.  Tissot  au 
sujet  de  sa  dispute  avec  M.  de  Haen.  Vienna?,  1763.  (G.  1763.) 

Cremers  (F.  H.):  Ostentationes  excusationesque  inoculatorum 
super  variolas  simul  cum  Velsianis  refutatae.  8°.  Lovanii,  1778. 

Cumenius  ( E.  J.):  De  praecipuis  insitionis  variolarum  tutori- 

arum  in  Finlandia  factis.  Pars  prima.  4°.  Aboae,  1817.  Pars  sec. 
ibid.,  1817. 

Danemark:  Le  conseil  de  la  raison;  ou  Lettre  sur  l'inoculation 
de  la  petite  verole.  Copenhague,  10.  mai,  1763. 

Danneil  (.J.  F. ):  Vergleich.  der  natiirl.  und  eingepfropften 

Blattern.  Quedlinburg,  1769.  (Poem.) 

D’Apples  (Jacob):  * Cogitationes  problematic*  de  variolis 

(etc.).  Basle,  1724. 

D’Apples  (Jacob):  Journal  d’une  inoculation  de  petite  verole. 
Act.  helv.  d.  sciences  1765,  VI,  194. 

David  (J.  P. ):  Observations  sur  la  nature,  les  causes  et  les 
effets  des  epidemies  varioloques,  et  refutation  de  quelques  ecrits 
contre  l’inoculation  de  la  petite  verole.  Geneve,  1764. 

Deering  (C.)  : An  account  of  an  improved  method  of  treating 
the  sma.ll-pox.  Nottingham,  1736. 

Desmoncets  (Pajon):  Dissertation  sur  la  petite  verole  et  l'in- 
oculation.  Paris,  1758.  (London,  1763.) 

Desessartz,  Portal  and  Le  Roy  (J.  B.) : Rapport  sur  le  projet 
d’etablisseinent  d’une  maison  d’inoculation,  par  le  eitoyen  Audin 
Rouviere.  8°  (n.  p.),  an  V (1796). 

Detharding  (G.  C.):  Historia  inoculationis  variolarum  (etc.). 
4°.  Rostochii  (1722). 

Dezoteux  (F. ):  Pieces  justificatives  des  lettres  concernant  l'in- 
oculation. Lons-le-Saunier,  1765. 

Dezoteux  (F.):  Opuscule  sur  l’inoculation.  P.  L.  M.  D.  Be- 

sangon.  1765. 

Dezoteux  (F.)  et  Valentin  (L.):  Traite  historique  et  pratique 
de  l’inoculation.  Paris,  an  VIII  (1800). 

Dezoteux,  Middleton,  Maty:  Lettres  concernant  l’inoculation  h 
Besangon.  London,  1765. 


(16) 


Dimsdale  (T.)  : The  present  method  of  inoculating  for  the 

small-pox.  London,  1767,  1769,  1772;  Dublin,  1767,  1774;  Phila., 
1771.  (G.  1768;  I.  1768;  F.  1772.) 

Dimsdale  ( T. ) : Thoughts  on  general  and  partial  inoculation. 
London,  1776. 

Dimsdale  (T.)  : An  introduction  to  the  plan  of  the  Inoculation 
Dispensary.  London,  1778. 

Dimsdale  (T.) : Remarks  on  Dr.  Lettsom’s  letter  to  Barker  and 
Stacpoole.  London,  1779. 

Dimsdale  (T.):  Tracts  on  inoculation.  (St.  Petersburg,  1768.) 
London,  1781. 

Dod  (Pierce):  Several  cases  in  physic,  etc.  London,  1746. 

(See  Kirkpatrick.) 

Van  Doeveren  (G.):  Brief  aan  Edward  Sandifort,  behelsende 
een  bericht  van  den  gelukkigen  uitslag  der  inentinge  der  kinder- 
pokjes,  onlangs  te  Groningen  ondervonden.  8°.  ’s  Gravenhage, 
1770. 

D’Origny:  Examen  de  l’inoculation  par  un  medecin  de  la  faculte 
de  Paris.  Paris,  1764. 

Douglas  (A.)  : De  variolse  insitione.  8°.  Edinburghi,  1775. 

Dubourg  (Jacques  Barbeu)  and  consorts:  Memoire  a consulter 
et  consultation.  Paris,  1768.  Seconde  memoire,  1768. 

le  Due  (Antonio)  : Dissertationes  in  novam,  tutam,  ac  utilem 
methodum  inoculationis,  seu  transplantationis  variolarum.  Lug- 
duni  Bat.,  1722. 

Durand  ( J.  B.) : De  variolarum  inoculatione,  1791.  In  Lou- 

vain Diss.  8°.  Lovanii,  1796,  IX,  354-359. 

Duvrac  (Louis):  Est-il  permis  de  proposer  l’inoculation  de  la 
petite  verole?  Paris,  1755. 

Eggert  (F.  F.  G.) : * De  variis  variolas  inserendi  modis.  Lip- 
sice,  1802. 

Ehrhart  (Theophil  de) : Darstellung  der  Griinde  fur  und  gegen 
die  Blatternimpfung;  fur  Leser  aus  alien  Standen.  Memmingen, 
1789. 

Eisen  von  Schwarzenberg  (J.  G.)  : Die  Blatter impfung  erleich- 
tert  und  den  Miittern  iibertragen,  nebst  Fortsetzung.  Riga,  1774. 

Eisner  (C.  F.):  Ein  paar  Worte  iiber  die  Pocken  und  die  In- 
oculation derselben.  Konigsherg,  1787. 

Enquiry  (An)  into  the  advantage  received  by  the  first  eight 
years’  inoculation.  12°.  London,  1731. 

de  l’Epine  (G.  J.):  Rapport  sur  le  fait  de  l’inoculation  de  la 
petite-  verole.  Paris,  1766. 

Expositions  on  the  inoculation  of  the  small-pox  and  of  the  cow- 
pox.  8°.  London,  1805. 

Eyerel  (Jos.):  Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  der  Kuh-und  Kinder- 

pocken.  8°.  Wien,  1800. 


(47) 


Ferguson  (R.) : A letter  to  Sir  Henry  Halford,  president  of  the 
Royal  College  of  Physicians,  proposing  a method  of  inoculating 
the  small-pox  which  deprives  it  of  all  its  danger,  but  preserves 
all  its  power  of  preventing  a second  attack.  8°.  London,  1825. 

Finke  (L.  L.):  Specimen  med.  histor.  sistens  insitionis  vari- 
olar um  in  comitatibus  Tecklaburgensi  atque  Lingensi  exercitae. 
4°.  Lingae,  1792. 

Flemming  (C.  A.):  De  inoculatione  variolarum  epidemico  eon- 
tagio  varioloso  longe  praeferenda.  4°.  Vitebergae,  1798. 

de  Fleury,  Maitre  (Omer  Joly),  avocat  du  Roi:  Arrest  de  la 

Cour  de  Parlement  sur  le  fait  de  l’inoculation.  Paris,  8 juin,  1763. 

Forbes  ( J.) : Some  account  of  the  small-pox  lately  prevalent  in 
Chichester  and  its  vicinity.  Lond.  Med.  Reposit.,  Sept.  1822,  p. 
218. 

Frewen  (T. ):  The  practice  and  theory  of  inoculation.  London, 
1749. 

Frewen  (T.) : De  insitione  variolarum.  Sm.  4°.  Traj.  ad 

Rhenum,  1755.  Also  in  Haller:  Disp.  ad  morb.  (etc.).  4°. 

Lausannae,  1758,  v,  683-694. 

Frewen  (T.)  : Some  reasons  given  against  an  opinion  that  a 
person  infected  with  the  small-pox  may  be  cured  by  antidote  with- 
out incurring  the  distemper;  with  an  attempt  to  explain  the 
manner  of  the  propagation  and  eruption  of  the  small-pox  from  the 
practice  of  inoculation.  8°.  London,  1759. 

Frua  (C.) : II  pus  del  vajuolo  umano  spontaneo  riprodotto  tra 
gli  nomini  per  alcuni  successivi  processi  di  innesto  (etc.).  8°. 

Milano,  1850. 

Further  hints  about  inoculation.  8°.  Gentleman’s  Magazine, 
London,  1752,  XXII,  511-513. 

Gale  ( 33 . ) : Historical  memoirs.  London,  1765.  (Phil.  Tr.) 

Gandini  (C.)  and  Pizzorno  (P.  F.):  Orazione  eccitatoria  all’ 
introduzione  dell'  innesto  del  vajuolo.  Lucca,  1759. 

Gandoger  de  Foigny  (P.  L.):  Traite  pratique  de  l'inoculation 
(etc.).  Nancy,  1768. 

Gardane  (J.  J.):  Observations  sur  la  meilleure  maniere  d’in- 
oculer  la  petite  verole.  Paris,  1767. 

Gardane  ( J.  J.) : Le  secret  des  Suttons  devoile  ou  l’inoculation 
mise  a la  portee  de  tout  le  monde.  La  Haye  and  Paris,  1774. 
(G.  1775.) 

Gatti  (A.):  Lettre  a M.  Roux.  Paris,  2 aout,  1763. 

Gatti  (A):  Reflexions  sur  les  prejuges  qui  s’opposent  aux  pro- 

gres  et  a la  perfection  de  l’inoculation.  Bruxelles,  1764. 

Gatti  (A.) : Nouvelles  reflexions  sur  la  pratique  de  l’inoculation. 
Paris,  1767.  (E.  1768,  G.  1772  and  1782,  It.  1768.) 

Gaubius  (H.  D.):  De  inenting  der  kinderpokjes  gedaen,  en  ter 
voller  herstellinge  toe  behandelt.  Zee  Hollandse  Matschappy  de 
Weetenseliappen  te  Harlem,  1755. 


(4S) 


Gaubius  (H.  D.)  : Lettre  a la  Faculte  de  Paris  sur  1’inoculation, 
21  nov.,  1763.  de  l’Bpine  rapport,  p.  12.  1766. 

Gaullard  fils:  Lettre  apologetique  a M.  M.,  medecin;  pour  servir 

de  reponse  §.  la  lettre  de  M.  de  la  C(ondamine),  inseree  dans  le 
Mercure  du  mois  de  mars,  1760.  8°.  (Paris,  1760.) 

Genees-  en  Heelkundig  Gezelschap  te  Rotterdam:  De  innting 

der  kinderpokjes  in  hare  groote  voordeelen  aangewezen  nit  eene 
vergelykinge  derzelven  met  die  door  den  natuurlyken  weg  komen. 
8°.  Rotterdam,  1757. 

Van  Ghert  (A.)  : Het  verschil  tusscben  . . . der  med.  doctor,  en 
tusschen  F.  H.  Cremers  der  med.  licent.,  naamentlijk,  of  den  jon- 
gen  beer  Cassa  na  de  inenting  der  pokken  die  andermaal  door  de 
natuurlijke  weg  heeft  bekoomen?  8°.  Breda,  1771. 

Giese  (J.  R. ) : Untersuchungen  warum  eingeimpfte  Pocken  eine 

gelinde  Krankheit  verursachen.  Miinster,  1790. 

Glass  (T.) : A letter  to  Dr.  Baker  on  the  means  of  procuring  a 
distinct  and  favorable  kind  of  small-pox  (etc.).  London,  1767. 

Glass  (T.) : A second  letter  to  Dr.  Baker  on  certain  methods  of 
treating  the  small-pox  during  the  eruptive  state.  London,  1767. 

Gleize  (D.)  : Imminens  a variolis  periculum,  ab  inoculatione 

tuto  profligari  cui  methodo  palma  debeatur?  4°.  Arausione,  1784. 

Gloucester  (Bishop  of):  Sermon  on  inoculation.  (1764.) 

Gmelin  (S.  T.)  : An  achorum  insitio,  imitando  variolarum  in- 
sitionem,  pro  curandis  pueritis  morbis  rebellibus  tuto  tentari 
possit.  4°.  Tubings,  1762. 

Goetz  ( J.  T.)  : Traite  complet  de  la  petite  verole  et  de  1’in- 
oculation, etc.  16°.  Paris,  1790. 

Grassot:  Memoire  et  observations  sur  la  methode  d’inserer  la 
petite  verole.  Bruxelles  (1764). 

Greding  (C.  G. ) : Epistola  de  primis  variolarum  initiis  ear  uni- 

que contagio  virulento.  4°.  Lipsis,  1781. 

Greenhill:  Occasional  letters  on  the  practice  of  inoculation. 

Guildford  and  London,  1767. 

Grimmann  (I.  C.) : * Prsmissa  est  variolarum  adulto  insitarum 
historia  variis  observationibus  illustrata.  Gottings,  1766. 

Grot  (Pastor  J.  C.)  : Kanzelrede  von  der  Rechtmassigkeit  der 
Blatterneinimpfung  aus  allgemeinen  Griinden.  Mitau,  Nov.  20, 
1769.  Zweite  Rede  am  21.  Nov.  1770.  Mitau,  1771. 

Guyot  (D.)  : Memoire  historique  sur  1’inoculation  de  la  petite 
verole,  pratiquee  a Geneve  depuis  Oct.  1750  jusqu’  a Nov.  1752 
inclusivement.  Mem.  de  1’Acad.  roy.  de  chir.  de  Paris,  1753,  ii. 
(“La  Haye  ” Recueil,  1755.) 

Haen  (Ant.  de) : Qusstiones  sspius  mots  super  metliodum  in- 
oculationem  versatur  (etc.).  Vienns,  1764. 

Haen  (Ant.  de  ) : Refutation  de  l’inoculation,  servant  de  re- 

ponse a M.  M.  de  la  Condamine  et  Tissot.  Vienne,  1759.  (Dutch 
1760.) 


(49i 


Haen  (Ant.  de) : Ad  Balthasaris  Ludovici  Tralles  epistolam 
apologeticam  responsio,  eujus  pars  prior  circa  variolarum  in- 
oculationem  versatur  (etc.).  Viennse,  1764. 

Haen  (Ant.  de) : Refutation  de  l’inoculation.  Vienna,  1759. 

Haen  (Ant.  de) : Von  Einimpfung  der  Pocken.  A.  d.  Lat. 

v.  F.  X.  v.  Wasserberg.  Wien,  1775.  [The  Latin  original  is  in  de 
Haen’s  “Ratio  medendi  ” (1758-79).] 

Hager  (C.  G.  H.):  De  vera  prseparationis  ad  variolarum  inser- 
tionem  indole.  8°.  Jenae,  1795. 

Hahn  (J.  G.) : Variolarum  antiquitates  nunc  primum  e Grascis 
erutae.  Accedit  de  Mesue  Syri  scriptis  epistola.  4°.  Brigse,  1733. 

Hank  (C.  G.):  Beantwortung  der  Frage:  Was  ist  von  den 

Pfropfpredigern  und  der  Empfehlung  der  Blatterneinimpfung 
auf  der  Kanzel  zu  halten?  Leipzig,  1777. 

Hannes  (C.  R.):  De  insitione  variolarum  in  urbe  patria  Vesa- 
liensi  tentata.  Vesal.,  1772. 

Harrhausen  (J.  G.  G. ):  Ueber  die  Pockeninoculation.  Ein 

Gesprach.  1791. 

Harris  (Walter) : De  peste  dissertatio  habita  Apr.  17,  1721, 

cui  accessit  descriptio  inoculationis  variolarum.  London,  1721. 

(“Haye  La”):  Recueil  de  quelques  pieces  interessantes  sur 

l’inoculation  de  la  petite  verole.  La  Haye,  1755. 

Haygarth  (John):  Inquiry  how  to  prevent  the  small-pox.  Lon- 
don, 1784.  (G.  and  F.  1786.) 

Haygarth  (John):  A sketch  of  a plan  to  exterminate  the  small- 
pox from  Great  Britain  and  to  introduce  general  inoculation. 
London,  1793.  (G.  1799.) 

Heberden  (W. ):  Plain  instructions  for  inoculation  in  the 

small-pox  (etc.).  4°.  London,  1759.  See,  also,  infra,  Franklin. 

[Hecquet  (C. ) ] : Raisons  de  doutes  contre  l’inoculation.  Paris, 
1723. 

Henschel  (Elias):  Von  den  Blattern  und  deren  Ausrottung. 

Breslau,  1796. 

Hensler  (P.  G. ) : Briefe  iiber  das  Blatterbelzen.  2 Thle.  Altona, 
1765,  1766. 

Hertzog  (F.  A.):  De  emolumentis  in  genus  humanum  ex  vari- 
olarum insitione  fluentibus.  4°.  (n.  p.,  1768.) 

Herz  (M.):  An  den  D.  Dohmeyer.  . . . iiber  die  Brutalimpfung 
und  deren  Vergleichung  mit  der  humanen.  2.  Abdr.  8°.  Berlin, 
1801. 

Hilscher  (S.  P.)  : Historia  variarum  methodorum  defendendi 

homines  a variolis  iisdemque  medendi.  Jens,  1745. 

le  Hoc  (L.  P.):  L’inoculation  de  la  petite  verole,  renvoyee  Jl 
Londres.  Paris,  1764. 

van  Hogendorp  (W.):  Redevoering  der  inenting  tot  de  ingeze- 
tenen  van  Batavia.  (Address  on  inoculation.)  Verh.  v.  h.  Bat. 
Gen.  v.  K.  en  W.,  Batavia,  1780,  ii,  201-216. 


(50) 


Holwell  ( J.  Z.) : An  account  of  the  manner  of  inoculating  for 
the  small-pox  in  the  East  Indies,  with  some  observations  on  the 
practice  and  mode  of  treating  that  disease  in  those  parts.  London, 
1767. 

Hosti:  Rapport  au  sujet  de  l’inoculation.  Ann.  Litter.,  1755, 
iv,  242.  Mercure  de  France,  aout,  1755.  J.  de  med.,  chir.,  pharm., 
etc.,  2.  ed.  Par.  1755,  iii,  274;  337. 

Houlton  (Rev.  Robt.) : Discourse  in  defence  of  inoculation,  Oct., 
1766.  (Lond.  Chron.,  Mar.,  1767.) 

Houlton  (Rev.  Robt.):  The  practice  of  inoculation  justified. 

A sermon.  Essex,  1766;  also,  Essex,  1767. 

Houth  (M.  F.),  Ruling  (I.  P.)  and  May  (F.  L. ) : Praemissas 

sunt  variolarum  duobus  adultis  insitarum  historias  non  nullis 
observationibus  illustratse.  Gottingas,  1766. 

Hovius  ( J.  H.) : Aanmerkingen  over  de  inenting  der  kinder- 
pokjes.  Haarlem,  1767. 

Howgrave  (F.) : Reasons  against  the  inoculation  of  the  small- 
pox. London,  1724. 

[le  Hoz.] : Avis  sur  l’inoculation  de  la  petite  verole.  1763. 

Hufeland  (C.  W.)  : Bemerkgn.  liber  die  natiirlichen  und  in- 

oculirten  Blattern,  verschiedene  Kinderkrankheiten.  und  sowohl 
med.  als  diat.  Behandlung  der  Krankheiten.  3 editions.  Berlin, 
1789;  Leipzig,  1792;  Leipzig,  1793. 

Huxham  (John) : Letter  to  Paris  Faculty  on  inoculation,  Ply- 

mouth, 26.  Nov.,  1763.  de  1’Epine  rapport  p.  12,  1766;  Andrew, 
Exeter,  1765. 

Inenting  (De)  der  kinderpokjes, getoetst  aan  het  gezonde  oordeel 
en  de  voorschriften  van  den  Godsdienst.  8°.  Amsterdam,  1780. 

Ingen-Housz  (Jan)  : Lettre  a M.  Chais  sur  la  nouvelle  methode 
d’inoculer  la  petite  verole.  Amsterdam,  1760. 

L’inoculation  prematuree  contraire  a la  raison,  a l’anatomie  et 
a l’experience,  trad,  de  l’anglais.  1769. 

Jacquin  (L’Abbe) : Lettre  sur  l’inoculation  de  la  petite  verole, 

dans  laquelle  on  examine  cette  methode  en  philosophe,  en  citoyen 
et  en  Chretien.  Geneve,  1756. 

Jenner  (Edward) ; Inquiry  into  the  causes  and  effects  of  the 
variolas  vaccinas,  or  cow-pox.  London,  1798. 

Jenner  (Edward)  : Further  observations  on  the  cow-pox. 

London,  1799. 

Joachim  (Josephus  Maria  Renatus) : Tractatio  chirurgico- 

medica  proponens  quaestionem  an  variolas  in  nostris  regionibus 
inoculare  sit  consiliendum.  Argentorati,  1755. 

Juncker  ( J.  C.  W.)  : Gemeinniitzige  Vorschlage  und  Nach- 

richten  liber  das  beste  Verhalten  der  Menschen  in  Riicksicht 
der  Pockenkrankheit.  Erster  Versuch.  Halle  u.  Leipzig,  1792. 
Zweiter  Versuch,  Halle,  1795;  Dritter  Versuch,  ibid.,  1796. 


(51) 


Juncker  ( J.  C.  W.)  : Archiv  fur  Aerzte  und  Seelsorger  wider 
die  Pockennoth.  7 Stiicke.  Leipzig,  1796-99. 

Jurin  (James):  Letter  to  Dr.  Caleb  Cotesworth.  (Feb.  20.) 

London,  1723.  (Fr.  transl.  (Montucla,  Recuefl)  mentions  letter  of 
C.  Mather  of  Mch.  10,  1722,  and  report  by  Capt.  James  Osborne  in 
Boston.) 

Jurin  (James):  Success  of  inoculation,  annual  accounts,  1723 
to  1727. 

Kalm  (M.):  Positiones  nonnullse  circa  necessitatem  ordina- 

tionum  cogentium  ad  negotium  insitionis  variolarum  tutoriarum 
in  Finlandia  rite  gerendum.  Sm.  4°.  Aboae  (1817). 

Kennedy  (P.):  An  essay  on  external  remedies.  London,  1715. 
(37.  chapt.) 

Kessler  (F.  L.)  : De  nonnullis  ad  variolarum  insitionem  per- 
tinentibus.  Halae,  1760. 

van  Kessel  (G.):  De  variolarum  inoculatione.  4°.  Lugd.  Bat., 
1790. 

Kirkpatrick  ( J.) : Dod  Pierce.  A letter  to  the  real  and  genuine 
Pierce  Dod,  M.  D.,  Actual  Physician  of  St.  Bartholomew’s  Hos- 
pital: Plainly  exposing  the  low  absurdity,  or  malice,  of  a late 

spurious  pamphlet,  falsely  ascribed  to  that  learned  physician. 
With  a full  answer  to  the  mistaken  case  of  a natural  small-pox 
after  taking  it  by  inoculation.  2d  edit.  London.  1746.  (Attrib- 
uted to  “ W.  Barrowby  ” in  Surg.  Gen.  Cat.) 

Kirkpatrick  (J.):  Analysis  of  inoculation,  with  a consideration 
of  the  most  remarkable  appearances  in  the  small-pox.  London, 
1754;  2.  ed„  1761.  (G.  1756.) 

Krause  (K.  C.) : Diss.  de  variolarum  exstirpatione  insitioni 

substituenda.  Lipsiae,  1762. 

Krisch  (C.) : * Problema  med.  sistens  inoculationem  variolarum 
in  utramque  partem  disputatam.  4°.  Lipsiae,  1737. 

Kriinitz  (J.  G.) : Verzeichniss  der  vornehmsten  Schriften  von 
den  Kinderpocken  und  deren  Einimpfung.  Leipzig,  1768. 

Krul  (R.) : De  inenting  van  de  ware  pokken  en  koepokken,  als 
voorbehoedmiddel  tegen  de  pokziekte.  Een  paar  bladzijden  uit 
de  geschiedenis  der  geneeskunde.  8°.  Leyden,  1857. 

de  La  Faye:  Discourse  against  inoculating  the  small-pox  with  a 
parallel  between  the  scripture  notion  of  Divine  Resignation  and 
the  modern  practice  of  inoculation.  London,  1751. 

de  La  Faye:  A sermon  entitled  “ Inoculation  an  indefensible 

practice.”  London,  1753. 

Langton  (W.) : An  address  to  the  public  on  the  present  method 
of  inoculation  (etc.).  London,  1767. 

Lapeyre  (L. ):  Memoire  instructif  sur  l’inoculation  des  petites 
veroles  (etc.).  4°.  Londres,  1771. 

Larnaudie  (J.  L.  J. ) : Circa  utilitatem  variolarum  inoculationis. 
8°.  Monspelii,  1780. 


(52) 


de  Lassone  (J.  M.  F.) : Rapport  des  inoculations  faites  dans  la 
famille  royale  an  Chateau  de  Marly,  lu  a l’Acad.  d.  sc.,  le  20 
juillet,  1774.  Paris,  1774. 

Lauraguais  (Le  comte  de) : Memoire  sur  l’inoculation,  lu  k 

l’Acad.  d.  sc.,  Paris,  6 juillet,  1763. 

Lavizzari  (V.  A.):  I primi  felici  successi  dell’  inoculazione  del 

vajuolo  introdotta  nella  Regia  di  qua  dell’  Alpi.  Lugano,  1764. 

von  Lederer  (F.  X.):  Ueber  die  wesentlichen  Vortheile  der 

Einimpfung  der  Kinderblattern.  Fur  das  Landvolk  geschrieben. 
16°.  Wien,  1796. 

Lenhardt  (J.):  De  commodis  ex  variolarum  insitione.  4°. 

Jenae,  1770. 

Letter  (A)  to  the  Reverend  Mr.  Massey,  occasioned  by  his  late 
wonderful  sermon  against  inoculation.  12°.  London,  1722. 

Letter  (A)  to  the  Right  Honourable  Spencer  Perceval  ...  on 
the  expediency  and  propriety  of  regulating  by  Parliamentary  au- 
thority the  practice  of  variolous  inoculation,  with  a view  to  the 
extermination  of  the  small-pox.  8°.  London,  1807. 

Lettsom  (J.  C.):  Letter  to  Sir  Robert  Barker  and  George  Stac- 
poole  upon  general  inoculation.  London,  1778. 

Lettsom  (J.  C. ) : Considerations  on  the  propriety  of  a plan 

for  inoculating  the  poor  of  London  in  their  own  habitations. 
London,  1779. 

Lettsom  ( J.  C.) : Observations  on  Baron  Dimsdale’s  remarks, 
etc.,  London,  1779. 

Lettsom  ( J.  C.) : An  answer  to  Baron  Dimsdale’s  review  of  Dr. 
Lettsom’s  observations  on  the  Baron’s  remarks  respecting  a letter 
upon  general  inoculation.  8°.  London,  1779. 

Lipscomb  (G.) : Inoculation  for  the  small-pox  vindicated  (etc.). 
12°.  London,  1805. 

de  la  Llena  (Jac.  Menos)  : Memoria  contra  la  inoculacion, 

sacada  de  las  dudas  y disputas  entre  los  autores.  Madrid,  1785. 

Lobb  (Theophilus) : Treatise  on  the  small-pox,  in  two  parts. 
London,  1731.  (F.  1732.) 

Lober  (Kristian) : Sendschreiben  von  dem  Wiederkommen  der 
Pocken  nach  geschehener  Einimpfung.  Erfurt,  1769. 

Locher  (Maxim) : Observationes  praeticas  circa  inoculationem 

variolarum  in  neonatis  institutam,  cum  II  continuationibus.  Vin- 
dobonse,  1768.  (3  publ.) 

(“Londres”):  Origine,  progrSs,  etat  de  l’Hospital  de  la  petite 
verole  naturelle  et  inoculee,  depuis  qu’il  a ete  fonde  a Londres  le 
26  sept.,  1746,  jusqu’au  24  mars,  1763.  (Extr.  de  l’Annee  litteraire, 
trad,  de  l’anglais.) 

Lucca:  L’inoculazione  del  vajolo  umano  e della  vaccina  sotto  il 
governo  della  repubblica  in  Lucca  (1756-1804).  (Compiled  from 
official  documents  by  C.  Gianni.)  8°.  Lucca,  1887. 


(53) 


Ludwig  (C.  F.)  : (Pr.)  historic  insitionis  variolarum  huma- 

narum  et  vaccinarum  comparatio.  Spec,  i-xii.  4°.  Lipsiae.  1803-16. 

Lunadei  (G.  B.) : Del  metodo  d’innestare  il  vajuolo,  difeso,  il- 
lustrate, renduto  piu  universale,  piu  comodo,  piu  sicuro,  e nello 
Stato  Pontificio  in  parecchie  centinaja  di  fanciulli  felicemente 
praticato.  4°.  Urbino,  1766. 

Lyman  (John) : * De  insitione  variolarum  (Koppympning)  prss. 
D.  Gustavo  Harmens.  Londini  Gothorum  d.  5.  Julii  a.  1760. 

Lyons:  Jugement  de  la  seneschaussee  de  Lyon,  qui  defend  a 

toutes  personnes  quelconques  de  se  faire  inoculer  dans  l’enceinte 
de  cette  ville,  du  9 mai,  1778.  Roy.  8°.  Leon,  1778. 

Maddox  (Isaac,  Bishop  of  Worcester):  A sermon  preached  be- 
fore the  president  and  governors  of  the  hospital  for  small-pox  and 
inoculation.  London,  1752.  (Repr.  Boston,  1753.)  5th  edit. 
Lond.  with  p.  s.,  1752. 

Maitland  (C.)  : Account  of  inoculating  the  small-pox  vindicated 
(against  Wagstaffe  and  Massey).  London,  1722  (1st  ed.  1722  only 
“ account ”). 

Maitland  (C.):  The  same,  2d  ed.  To  which  is  added  a post- 
script, confirming  the  success  of  this  practice,  from  Mr.  Massey 
the  apothecary’s  pamphlet  on  the  subject.  16°.  London,  1723. 

Manetti  (Saverio):  Della  inoculazione  del  vajuolo.  Firenze, 

1761.  Su'ppl.,  1762. 

Mangin:  Memoire  sur  l’inoc-ulation  de  la  petite  verole.  Metz, 
1769. 

Maret  (Hugo):  Memoire  sur  les  moyens  & employer  pour  s’op- 
poser  aux  ravages  de  la  variole.  Paris,  1780.  (G.  1790.) 

Martineau  de  Soleire:  Poeme  heroique  sur  la  petite  verole:  Les 

voeux  de  la  France  pour  la  sante  du  Roi.  Paris,  1729. 

Masars:  Memoire  sur  cette  question:  Est-il  sage,  est-il  prudent 
d’inoculer  la  petite  verole  dans  l’objet  de  guerir  d’autres  mala- 
dies? 8°.  [Mem.  Acad,  de  Toulouse,  1790,  iv.] 

Massey  ( E. ) : A letter  to  Mr.  Maitland  in  vindication  of  the 
sermon  against  inoculation.  12°.  London,  1722. 

Massey  (E.) : The  same,  2.  ed.,  to  which  is  added  a letter  to  the 
learned  James  Jurin.  In  answer  to  his  letter  to  the  learned  Dr. 
Cotesworth,  and  his  comparison  between  the  mortality  of  natural 
and  inoculated  small-pox.  12°.  London,  1723. 

Massey  (Edmund):  Sermon  against  inoculating  the  small-pox. 
London,  1722  (3d  edit.  repr.  Boston,  1730). 

Massey  (Isaac):  A short  and  plain  account  of  inoculation  with 
some  remarks.  London.  1722. 

Massey  (Isaac) : Remarks  on  Dr.  Jurin’s  last  yearly  account  of 
the  success  of  inoculation.  London,  1727. 

Maty  (M.):  Lettre  aux  auteurs  de  la  Gazette  littdraire.  Calais, 
1764. 


(54) 


May  (N.) : Impartial  remarks  on  the  Suttonian  method  of  in- 

oculation. 8°.  London,  1770. 

Mead  (Rich.):  A discourse  of  the  small-pox  and  measles.  To 
this  is  subjoined  the  Commentary  of  Rhazes.  Transl.  from  Latin 
by  J.  Theobald,  M.  D.  (L.  1747.)  London,  1750.  (G.  1762.) 

Medicus  (F.  C.)  : Sendschreiben  von  der  Ausrottung  der  Kinder- 
blattern.  Frankfurt  a.  M„  1763. 

Mieg:  Briefe  von  dem  Erfolg  der  Einpfropfung  der  Pocken  an 
einigen  Orten  in  unserer  Schweiz.  (1767.) 

Millin  de  la  Courveault  ( J.  N.)  and  Morisot  des  Landes  (J.  P.) : 
Ergo  Parisinis  variolarum  inoculatio.  In  Haller:  Disp.  ad 

morb.  Lausannse,  1758,  v,  695-712. 

Missa  (Dr.):  Lettre  a M.  Cantwel,  au  sujet  de  l'inoculation, 

avec  reponse  du  dernier.  Paris,  1755. 

Mohsen  (J.  C.  W.) : Sammlung  merkwiirdiger  Erfahrungen, 

die  den  Werth  u.  grossen  Nutzen  der  Pocken-Inoculation  naher 
bestimmen.  2 Stiicke.  1.  Stck.  Liibeck,  1774;  2.  und  3.  Stck. 
Berlin  und  Leipzig,  1775. 

Monro  (Alex.)  primus : An  account  of  the  inoculation  of  the 
small-pox  in  Scotland.  Edinburgh,  1765.  (Reply  to  queries  of  the 
Fac.  de  med.,  Paris.)  (G.  1766.) 

Montucla:  Recueil  de  pieces  concernant  l’inoculation  de  la 

petite  verole  et  propres  a en  prouver  la  securite  et  l’utilite.  Paris, 
1756. 

Moore  (James):  The  history  of  the  small-pox.  London,  1815. 

Morisot  des  Landes  (P.  I.):  An  Parisinis  variolarum  inocula- 
tio? Quaestio  medica.  Millin  de  la  Courveault,  Praes.  Paris, 
1755. 

Mudge  (J.):  A dissertation  on  the  inoculated  small-pox.  1777. 
(G.  1778.) 

Miilich  (I.  F. ):  Q.  D.  B.  V.  de  variolarum  insitione  modesta 
epicrisis,  etc.  Altorfii  Noricorum,  1725. 

Murray  (J.  A.):  * Fata  variolarum  insitionis  in  Suecia.  Got- 
tingae, 1763. 

Murray  (J.  A.):  Historia  insitionis  variolarum  in  Suecia  ad 

novissimum  tempus  protracta.  Gottingae,  1767. 

Murray  (J.  A.):  Observationum  et  animadversionum  super 

variolarum  insitione  satura  sect,  i-iii.  4°.  Gottingae,  1779. 

Nettleton  (Thomas).  An  account  of  the  success  of  inoculating 
the  small-pox  in  a letter  to  Dr.  William  Whitaker.  London,  1722. 
(Halifax,  Apr.  3,  1722.)  8°. 

Nettleton  (T.) : Letter  to  Jurin,  Halifax,  16.  Dec.,  1722.  Phil. 
Trans.  1722,  p.  209. 

New  (The)  practice  of  inoculating  the  small-pox  consider’d, 
and  an  humble  application  to  the  approaching  Parliament  for  the 
regulation  of  that  dangerous  experiment.  8°.  London,  1722. 


(55) 


Niedt,  (A.  L.):  Diss.  monstrans  variolarum  spuriarum  ex  vera- 
rum  pure  ortum.  8°.  Hal®,  1792. 

van  Nielen  (P.  M. ):  Inenting  der  kinderziekte  in  de  Ooster- 

sche  volkplantingen.  (Prize  essay.  Silver  Medal.)  Verh.  v.  h. 
Bat.  Gen.  v.  K.  en  W.,  Batavia,  1782,  v,  87-198. 

Nissen  (H.  A.):  Utrum  naturalibus  pr®stent  variol®  artifi- 

ciales.  4°.  Gotting®,  1757. 

Noel  (M.):  Traite  historique  et  pratique  de  l’inoculation.  8°. 
Reims,  1789. 

Noguez:  Relation  du  succes  de  l’inoculation  de  la  petite  verole. 
(Transl.  Jurin.)  Paris,  1725. 

Norwich  (Bishop  of):  Sermon  preached  before  the  Governors 
of  the  Inoculation  Hospital,  1764. 

Odier  (Louis):  Lettre  a M.  Ant.  de  Haen  sur  la  mortality  de 
la  petite  verole.  Journ.  de  med.,  chir.,  et  pharm.,  1773,  xl,  237,  et 
seq.,  1776,  1777. 

Odier  (Louis):  Reponse  aux  questions  du  Dr.  Haygarth  sur 
l’inoculation.  1785. 

Olberg  (F.):  Beitrage  zur  Litteratur  der  Blattern  und  deren 
Einimpfung,  v.  J.,  1768-90.  Halle,  1791. 

Opinion  d’un  medecin  de  la  Faculte  de  Paris,  sur  l’inoculation 
de  la  petite  verole.  Paris,  1768. 

Opitz  (R.  C.  F. ):  Geschichte  der  in  Minden  eingepfropften  Ein- 
pfropfung  der  Kinderblattern.  Minden,  1775. 

O’Scanlan  (Tim.):  Practica  moderna  de  la  inoculacion.  Mad- 
rid, 1790. 

O’Scanlan  (Tim.):  Ensaye  apologetico  de  la  inoculacion  de  las 
viruelas.  Madrid,  1791. 

Oskamp  (L.):  Over  de  natuurlyke  en  ingeente  kinderpokjes. 

Amsterdam,  1797. 

Panzerbeiter  (J.  F.  C.) : De  variolarum  insitione  extra  epide- 
miam  instituenda.  4°.  Jen®,  1782. 

( Paris) : L’inoculation  de  la  petite  verole,  deferee  a l'eglise  et 
aux  magistrats.  Paris,  1756. 

Paulet  (J.  J.) : Histoire  de  la  petite  verole,  avec  les  moyens 
d’en  preserver  les  enfans.  Vol.  1,  2.  Paris,  1768. 

Percival  (T.) : On  the  disadvantages  which  attend  the  inocula- 
tion of  children  in  early  infancy.  8°.  London,  1768. 

Perry:  Seasonable  thoughts  and  advice  upon  inoculation,  (n. 

p.)  1752. 

Petit  (A.):  Premier  rapport  en  faveur  de  l’inoculation,  lu  dans 
l’assemblee  de  la  Fac.  de  med.  de  Paris,  en  l’annee  1764.  Paris, 
1766.  Sec.  rapp.,  1766.  (Also  J.  de  med.,  chir.,  pharm.,  etc.  Paris, 

1766,  xxv,  291-310.) 

Petit  (A.) : Lettre  a M.  le  Doyen  de  la  Faculte  de  medecine,  sur 
quelques  faits  relatifs  a la  pratique  de  l’inoculation.  Amsterdam, 

1767. 


(56) 


t 


Pigatti  (G.  M.):  Storia  dell’  inoculazione  del  vajuolo  eseguita 
in  Vicenza  nel  mese  di  aprile  dell’  anno  mdcclxix,  per  eomando 
dell’ . . . senato  e del  magistrate  . . . della  sanita.  Fol.  Vicenza, 
1769. 

Pinel  (P.)  and  Leroux  (J.  J.)  : Ecole  de  medecine  de  Paris. 
Clinique  d’inoculation.  Rapport  fait  a l’Ecole  de  medecine  de 
Paris,  sur  la  clinique  d’inoculation.  8°.  (Paris,  an  VII,  1799.) 

[Pisa]  Tre  consulti,  o disamine  fatte  in  difesa  del  l’innesto  del 
vaiuolo  da  tre  dottissimi  teologi  Toscani  viventi,  e rivedute  da 
essoloro.  8°.  Pisa,  1763. 

Poinsinet:  L’inoculation,  poeme  a Monseigneur  le  Due  d’Or- 

leans.  Paris,  1756. 

Poli  (G.  S.):  Pel  felice  restabilimento  delle  altezze  reali  dall’ 
innesto  del  vajuolo.  Vonto  di  . . . 4°.  (Napoli,  1780,  vel  subseq.) 

Power  (J.) : Precis  hist,  de  la  nouvelle  methode  d’inoculer  (Sut- 
ton). Amsterdam  (Paris),  1769.  (Ital.,  Venice,  1770.) 

Pringle:  Letter  to  Paris  Faculty  on  inoculation.  London,  29. 
Oct.,  1763. 

Pufendrof  (F.  L.  v.) : Ausfiihrbare  Vorschlage  zur  ganzlichen 
Vertilgung  der  Blattern.  Braunschweig,  1792. 

Pylarini  (Jac.) : Nova  et  tuta  variolas  excitandi  per  trans- 

plantationem  methodus.  Venet.,  1715.  (See,  also:  Phil.  Trans. 
Art.  V,  No.  347,  1716;  and  1731,  v,  377;  Montucla,  Recueil,  etc., 
1756.) 

R.  (M.  L.)  : L’inoculation,  poeme  en  quatre  chants.  Amster- 
dam, 1773. 

Rahn  (J.  H.)  : Erfolg  der  Einpfropfung  in  unserer  Schweiz. 

(1767.) 

Raisons  de  l’inoculation  de  la  petite  verole  (etc.).  16°.  Lon- 

dres,  1768. 

Ranby:  Sur  les  preparations  necessaires  a l’inoculation,  et  sur 
la  maniere  de  gouverner  les  inocules.  Trad,  du  Latin.  Geneve, 
1751.  Montucla,  Recueil,  1756.  (See,  also.  La  Haye  Recueil, 
1755.) 

Rast,  fils.  Reflexions  sur  l’inoculation  de  la  petite  verole  et  sur 
les  moyens  qu’on  pourroit  employer  pour  delivrer  1’Europe  de 
cette  maladie.  Lyon,  1763. 

Razoux  (J.) : Lettre  a M.  Belletete  sur  les  inoculations  faites  a, 
Nimes.  1764. 

Rechberger  (A.  J.):  Vollstandige  Geschichte  der  Einimpfung 
der  Blattern  in  Wien,  nebst  der  besten  Art,  sie  vorzunehmen. 
Wien,  1788. 

Redern:  Reponse  a la  dissertation  de  M.  le  comte  Roncalli,  sur 
l’inoculation  de  la  petite  verole.  4°.  Avignon,  1758. 

Reiter  (J.):  De  insitione  variolum.  12°.  Anglipoli,  1784. 

Relhan  (Ant.)  : Refutation  of  the  reflexions  against  inoculation, 
published  by  Rast.  London,  1764. 


(57) 


Remarks  on  Dr.  Some’s  ease  of  receiving  the  small-pox  by  in- 
oculation, impartially  considered.  Cutting  from  Gent.  Mag., 
London,  1750,  531. 

Remarks  on  the  remarks  of  . . . ; or,  inoculation  justified.  8°. 
Cutting  from  Gent.  Mag.,  London,  1752. 

Representation  (A)  from  the  governors  of  the  Hospital  for  the 
Small-pox  and  for  Inoculation.  8°.  (n.  p.,  1756.) 

Reyland  (B.  J.)  : Ueber  den  Nutzen  der  Pockeninoculation. 

Aachen,  1795. 

Richard  (J.  B.):  Tentamen  juvenile  de  variolarum  extirpa- 

tione.  Monspelii,  1764. 

Robert  (M.  J.  C. ) : An  a variolarum  inoculatione  aer  insalu- 
bris?  4°.  Parisiis,  1757. 

Robert  (M.  J.  C.) : Recherches  sur  la  nature  et  l’inoculation  de 
la  petite  verole.  La  Haye  and  Paris,  1763. 

Roederer  (Gottingen):  LRrum  naturalibus  praestent  variolas 

artificialis?  Notitia  scriptorum  de  insitione  variolarum.  1756. 

Rollo  ( J.)  : Medical  report  of  cases  of  inoculation  and  re- 
inoculation with  variolous  and  vaccine  matter  (etc.).  8°.  Lon- 

don, 1804. 

Roman  (Abbe  M.  L. ) : L’inoculation,  poeme  en  quatre  chansons. 
Dedie  a l’imperatrice  Catherine  II.  1 Gravure.  Amsterdam 
(Paris,  Sacombe),  1773. 

- Roncallo  Parolini  (Franeiscus  Comes):  In  variolarum  insiti- 

onem  declamatio  epistolaris  (etc.).  Edit.  sec.  Pisis,  1759. 

Rosen  (Nils):  Diss.  de  variolis  prtecidendis.  Upsaliae,  1754. 

Rosen  von  Rosenstein  (Nils)  : Underattelser  om  barn-sjuk- 

domar  och  deras  bote-medel,  tilforene  styckevis  utgifne  uti  de  sma 
almanachorna,  nu  samlade,  tilokte  och  forbattrade.  Stockholm, 
1764. 

Rotterdam  (Drs.  v.  Leempoel,  Vink,  de  Bruas,  de  Monchy, 
Stook,  Hoog,  Langguth,  Scholten)  : Inenting  der  kinderpokjes  in 
haare  groote  voordeelen.  Rotterdam,  1757. 

Roux  (A.):  Rapport  sur  le  fait  de  l’inoculation,  etc.  (Extr. 
du  J.  de  med.,  chir.,  pharm.,  etc..  Par.,  avril,  1765.)  Paris,  1765. 

Ruston  (T.):  An  essay  on  inoculation  for  the  small-pox.  Lon- 
don, 1767.  2.  ed.,  enlgd.,  London,  1768;  3.  ed.,  1768. 

St.  Clare  (G.)  : De  variolis  inserendis.  8°.  Edinburgh  1780. 

Salmade  (A)  : Anleitung  zur  Einimpfung  der  Blattern.  Frankf. 
a M.,  1800. 

Salva  (F.) : Proceso  de  la  inoculacion  presentado  al  tribunal  de 
los  Sabios.  Barcelona,  1777. 

Sammlung  merkwiirdiger  Erfahrungen  iiber  den  Werth  und 
Nutzen  der  Pockeninoculation.  3 Stiicke.  Berlin,  1774-75. 

Sarcone  (M.):  Del  contagio  del  vajuolo  e della  necessita  di 

tentarne  l’estirpazione.  Napoli,  1770. 

Schaeffer  (F.  T.):  De  variolarum  insitione.  4°.  Jenas,  1798. 


(58) 


Schaeffer  (J.  U.  G.) : Versuch  einer  Theorie  deY  euglischen 

Pockenimpfung  als  Gegenstiick  zu  Marcus  Herz’s  Brutalimpfung. 
12°.  Niirnberg,  1802. 

Scherb  ( J.  C.)  : Ueber  die  Einpfropfung  der  Pocken.  Zurich 

und  Winterthur,  1779. 

Scheuchzer  (J.  G.):  Account  of  the  success  of  inoculating  the 
small-pox  in  Great  Britain,  etc.  (L.  1729.) 

Schinz  ( S. ) : Ahgekurzte  Geschichte  der  Einpfropfung  der 

Kinderblattern  in  Zurich  vom  Jahre  1760  bis  zu  Ende  Mai  1768. 
Zurich,  1769. 

Schinz  (S.) : Sendschreiben  an  Herrn  Anton  von  Storck.  Ueber 
die  Einpfropfung  der  Kinderblattern.  Zurich,  1773. 

Schroeder  (P.  G.):  (Pr.)  Praemissa  sunt  variolarum  duobus 

adultis  insitarum  histori®  nonnullis  observationibus  illustrat®. 
Sm.  4°.  Gotting®,  1766. 

Schroter  (L.  P.):  Kurzer  Unterricht  von  der  gegenwartigen 

ungekunstelten  Methode  die  Blattern  einzupfropfen.  Bremen, 
1773. 

Schultze  (F.  A.) : Abhandlung  von  dem  Ursprunge  der  Inoeuli- 

rung  der  Kinderpocken.  Liineburg,  1756. 

Schulz  (David) : Berattelse  om  koppors  ympande  ofverlamnad 

till  hogloflige  Kongl.  Sundhets-Commissionen.  Stockholm,  1756 

Schulz  (David)  : Ron  vid  kopp-ympningen,  giorde  och  ingifne. 
Haudlingar,  1756. 

Schulz  (David) : Forslag  til  et  ympningshus,  i likhet  med  det 
i London. 

Schulz  (David)  : Intradestal  om  barns  skotsel  i gemen  hallet 

for  Kongl.  Yetensk  Academien  den  16.  April  Ar  1760.  Stock- 
holm, 1760. 

Schulz  (David):  An  account  of  inoculation  for  the  small-pox, 
etc.  London.  1758,  1767.  (G.  1769.) 

Schwager  (J.  M.):  1st  die  Inoculation  der  Pocken  Pflicht  oder 
nicht?  Herford  (1770?). 

Schwencke  (M.  W.) : Anmerkingen  over  bet  getal  en  den  ouder- 
dom  der  gestorvenen  aan  de  kinderpokjes.  (Letter  to  Eduard 
Sandifort.)  Haag,  1770. 

Schwencke  (M.  W.) : Brief  an  H.  Eduard  Sandifort  (inocula- 
tion) S’Graavenh.,  1770. 

Schwencke  ( T. ) : Lettre  a M.  Chais.  Trad,  du  Latin.  La  Haye 
Recueil,  1755. 

Schwencke  (Thomas) : Noodig  bericht  over  de  inentinge  der 
kinderpokjes  in  S’Hage.  Haag,  1756. 

Silver  (T.) : De  variolarum  insitione.  8°.  Edinburgi,  1768. 

Sloane  (Sir  Hans)  : An  account  of  inoculation  given  to  Mr. 

Ranby  to  be  published,  anno  1736.  Phil.  Trans.  1756,  xlix,  516. 


(50) 


Some  (David)  : The  case  of  receiving  the  small-pox  by  inocu- 
lation, impartially  considered,  especially  in  a religious  view. 
London,  1751. 

Spallarossa  ( J. ) : Disertacion  physico-medica,  en  que  con  la 

razon,  authoridad,  y esperiencia,  demuestra  la  utilidad,  y securidad 
de  la  inoculacion  de  las  viruelas.  In  3 pts.  4°.  Cadiz,  1767. 

Spoering  (H.  D. ):  Inoculatio  variolarum,  eller  kort  beskrif- 

ning  om  sattet  at  ympa  koppor  pa  menniskior.  Abb.  1737. 

Spring  (J.  P. ):  Akademische  Rede  von  einem  der  Inoculation 
entgegengesetzten  neuen  Rettungsmittel  in  und  vor  der  Blatter- 
krankheit.  4°.  Miinchen,  1770. 

v.  d.  Steeg  (J.):  Bericht  nopens  den  aart  der  kinderziekte  te 
Batavia.  (Nov.  2.  1778.)  Yerh.  v.  h.  Bat.  Gen.  v.  K.  en  W.,  Ba- 
tavia, 1779,  i,  71-82. 

von  Storck  ( Frhr.  Anton ) : Abhandl.  von  der  Einpfropfung  der 
Kinderblattern.  Wien,  1771.  Lat.  transl.  1775.  (F.  1778.1 

Strack  (Carl) : Beantwortung  der  Preisfrage  vom  Blattergift. 
Frankfurt  a.  M.,  1780. 

Stunzer  ( J.  N.  C.)  : Ueber  die  Pocken  und  die  Einimpfung  fur 
Unerfahrene  in  der  Arzneiwissenscbaft.  Wien,  1784. 

Sutton  (Daniel):  The  tryal  of  Mr.  . . . for  the  high  crime  of 
preserving  the  lives  of  His  Majesty’s  liege  subjects  by  means  of 
inoculation.  2.  ed.  London,  1767. 

Sutton  (D.):  The  inoculator;  or,  Suttonian  system  of  inocu- 
lation, fully  set  forth  in  a plain  and  familiar  manner.  8°.  Lon- 
don, 1796. 

van  Swieten  (Gerhard):  Abhandlung  von  den  Blattern,  aus 

dessen  Erklarung  der  Boerhavischen  Lehrsatze  genommen  und 
aus  dem  Lateinischen  ganz  neu  iibersetzt.  Frankfurt  a.  M.,  1777. 

Targione  (G.):  Relazioni  d’innesti  di  vajuolo  fatti  in  Firenze 
nell’  autunno  dell’  anno  1756.  Firenze,  1757. 

Tavares  (F.) : Resultado  das  observagoes  feitas  no  hospital  real 
da  inoculagao  das  bexigas  nos  annos  de  1796,  1797,  e 1798,  pelos 
medicos  do  mesmo  hospital  Antonio  Mendes  Franco,  e Fortunato 
Rafael  Amado.  16°.  Lisboa,  1799. 

Tennent  (J.  V.  B.):  De  insitione  variolarum.  4°.  Lugd.  Bat., 
1764. 

“Terrassee”:  L’inoculation  terrassee  par  le  bon  sens.  1763. 

Timoni  (Email.):  Historia  variolarum,  quae  per  insitionem 

excitantur.  Constantinopel,  1713.  (See  also:  Phil.  Trans.,  Art.  V, 
No.  339,  1714;  Actis  eruditor,  Lipsiae,  1714:  and  Montucla.  Recueil, 
etc.,  1756.)  Also  Lugd.  Bat.,  1721. 

Timoni  ( Eman.) : Tractatus  bini  de  nova  variolas  per  trans- 
plantationem  excitandi  methodo.  Lugd.  Bat.,  1721. 

Timony  (Ant.):  Diss.  sur  l’inoculation  de  la  petite  vdrole. 

Vienne,  1762. 


(60) 


Tissot  (S.  A.):  L’inoculation  justifiee  on  dissertation  pratique 
et  apologetique  sur  cette  methode.  Lausanne,  1754.  Paris,  1773, 
1786.  (G.  ' Halle,  1756.) 

Tissot  (S.  A.) : Lettre  a M.  de  Haen  en  reponse  a ses  questions 
sur  l’inoculation.  Lausanne,  1759;  Vienna,  1759. 

Tissot  und  Rosenstein:  Abhandl.  v.  der  Natur  und  Kur  der 

Kinderblattern.  Hrsg.  von  E.  G.  Baldinger.  Leipzig,  1778.  (Lan- 
gensalza,  1768.) 

Torngren  (J.  A.):  De  praecipuis  insitionis  variolarum  tutori- 

arum  in  Finlandia  fatis.  Pt.  1-2.  Sm.  4°.  Abore  (1817). 

Tomlinson  (T.)  : In  novam  methodum  variolas  inserendi  com- 
mentarium.  Birminghamiae,  1767. 

Tralles  (B.  L.):  De  metbodo  medendi  variolis,  etc.,  diss.  epist. 
ad  Io.  C.  Sulzerum.  Vrastislavia?,  1761. 

Tralles  (B.  L.):  De  methodo  medendi  variolas  hactenus  cog- 
nita  saepe  insufficiente  magno  pro  inoculatione  argumento.  Bres- 
lau, 1765. 

Tralles  (B.  L.):  Vexatissimum  nostra  aetate,  de  insitione  vari- 
olarum, vel  admittenda,  vel  repudianda,  argumentum,  occasione 
quaestionum  ab  illustrissimo  viro  Antonio  de  Haen.  Vratislavias, 
1765.  (Naples,  1778.) 

Triller  (D.  W.) : Todestempel,  Gediclit.  1725. 

Triller  (D.  W.) : Gepriifte  Inoculation.  Ein  physikalisch- 

moralisches  Heldengedicht.  Frankfurt,  1766. 

Triller  (D.  W. ):  Griindliche  medicinische  und  moraliscbe  Be- 
tracbtung  iiber  die  allzubekanute  Einpfropfung  der  Pocken;  aus 
wahrem  menschlicbem,  redlichem  Mitleiden,  und  aufricbtiger 
Absicht  angestellet.  4°.  (n.  p.,  n.  d.) 

Triumph  (The)  of  inoculation,  a dream.  London,  Payne,  1767. 
4°,  large  paper,  pp.  20. 

Tronchin:  Relation  de  l’inoculation  de  S.  E.  R.  Ferdinand, 

Prince  hereditaire  de  Parme,  age  de  treize  ans.  Paris,  1764. 

Ulrici  (J.  H.)  and  Stoll  (C.  H.):  Methodus  nova  transplantandi 
variolas  per  insitionem.  Das  Blatter-Beltzen.  4°.  Wittenbergae, 
1720. 

Undersokning  om  koppers  ympande.  12°.  Stockholm,  1754. 

Vater  (A.) : Das  Blatter-Beltzen  oder  die  Art  und  Weise  die  Blat- 

tern  durch  kiinstliche  Einpfropffung  zu  erwecken.  Sm.  4°.  Wit- 
tenberg, 1721. 

Zulatti  (Angelo):  Notizie  degl’  innesti  di  vajuolo  fatti  in 

Cefalonia.  Venezia,  1768. 

Zurich:  Impfcatechismus  fur  das  Landvolk.  Zurich,  1782. 

Vernage.  Observations  sur  la  petite  verole  naturelle  et  arti- 
ficielle.  La  Haye,  1763. 

Verschuir  (W.  F.)  : Verhandeling  over  de  inenting  der  kinder- 
pokjes.  8°.  (Amsterdam,  1769.) 


(61) 


Vieusseux  (G.):  Traite  de  la  nouvelle  maniere  d’inoculer  la 
petite  verole.  Geneve,  1773. 

de  la  Vigne  de  Freschville:  Est-il  permis  de  proposer  l’inocula- 
tion  de  la  petite  verole?  (French  and  Latin  text.)  Paris,  1755. 

Visentini.  Inoculazione  del  vajuolo,  etc.  Magazzino  italiano, 
N.  6 and  7,  sett,  e ott.  1768,  pag.  187-218. 

Vogelsang  (C.)  : De  efficacia  insitionis  variolarum  in  curandis 
nonnullis  morbis  chronicis  exhibens.  8°.  Gottingse,  1788. 

Voltaire:  Snr  l’inoculation  de  la  petite  verole.  Lettres  sur  les 
Anglais  (XI)  1727.  (Later,  1764,  in  Diet,  phil.) 

Wagstaffe  (W.) : Letter  to  Dr.  Freind  showing  the  danger  and 
incertainty  of  inoculating  the  small-pox.  London,  1722.  (June 
12.)  2.  and  3.  ed.  London,  1722. 

Watkinson  (J.):  An  examination  of  a charge,  brought  against 
inoculation  by  de  Haen,  Rast,  Dimsdale  and  other  writers.  Lon- 
don, 1777. 

Watson  (W. ) : An  account  of  a series  of  experiments,  instituted 
with  a view  of  ascertaining  the  most  successful  method  of  in- 
oculating the  small-pox.  London,  1768.  (Dutch.  Amst.,  1769.) 

Watson  (W. ):  The  same.  Het  nut  in  de  veiligste  wyze  van  de 
inenting  der  kinderpokjes  beschouwd  in  het  verhaal  van  eene 
reeks  van  proefneemingen.  8°.  Amsterdam,  1769. 

Watts  (Giles) : A vindication  of  the  new  method  of  inoculating 
the  small-pox,  against  the  arguments  and  objections  of  Dr.  Lang- 
ton  and  Mr.  Bromfield,  etc.  London,  1767. 

Way  (N.):  De  variolarum  insitione.  8°.  Philadelphia,  1771. 

Wayne  (F.):  De  variolarum  insitione.  Sm.  4°.  Edinburgh 

1753. 

Weinland  (E.  F.):  Vortheile,  welche  der  Staat  durch  Einfiihr- 
ung  des  Blatterbelzens  erlangt.  Celle,  1769. 

Wetsch  (I.  J.):  Bestrittener  Vortheil  die  Einpfropfung  der 

Kinderpocken,  etc.  Wien,  1764. 

Whitte:  Historiam  contagii  ab  inoculatione,  annis  1750,  1751. 

Wilkes  (J.):  Suttonius,  ou  le  magicien  blanc,  nouvelle  nou- 

velle. La  Haye,  1768. 

Williams  (P. ):  Some  remarks  upon  Dr.  Wagstaffs  letter 

against  inoculating  the  small-pox  (etc.).  12°.  London,  1725. 

Wilson  (A.):  De  variolis  insitivis.  8°.  Edinburgh  1771. 

Wolf  (J.  H.  K. ):  Die  Pflicht,  durch  die  Einpfropfung  der 

kiinstlichen,  den  natiirlichen  Blattern  zu  entgehen.  Griinstadt, 
1768. 

Woodville  (W.)  : History  of  inoculation  in  Great  Britain,  etc. 
1796. 

Wreden  (J.  E.):  Verniinftige  Gedanken  von  der  Inoculation 

der  Blattern.  Hanover,  1724. 

Wreden  (John):  An  essay  on  the  inoculation  of  the  small-pox. 
London,  1779. 


(62) 


Wrisberg  (H.  A.) : De  insitione  variolarum,  etc.  Goettingen, 
1765. 

Wrisberg  (H.  A.)  : Beitrag  zur  Pockengeschichte.  1 Theil.  4°. 
Goettingen,  1770. 

Zadig  (A.):  Plan,  nacb  welchem  die  Einimpfung  der  Pocken 
in  einer  ganzen  Provinz  allgemein  eingefiihrt,  und  die  langst 
gewiinscbte  Ausrottung  der  Seuche  erreicht  werden  konnte.  Bres- 
lau, 1797. 


II.  America  xa. 

Boylston  ( Z. ) : Some  account  of  what  is  said  of  inoculating  or 
transplanting  the  small-pox  by  the  learned  Dr.  Emanuel  Timonius 
and  Jacobus  Pylarinus.  With  some  remarks  thereon.  To  which 
are  added,  A few  queries  in  answer  to  the  scruples  of  many  about 
the  lawfulness  of  this  method.  Boston,  1721. 

Boylston  ( Z. ) : An  historical  account  of  the  small-pox  inocu- 
lated in  New  England,  etc.  London,  1726.  Repr.  Boston,  1730. 

Colman  (Rev.  Benjamin) : Some  observations  on  the  new 

method  of  receiving  the  small-pox  by  ingrafting  or  inoculating. 
Boston,  1721. 

Colman  (Rev.  Benjamin):  A narrative  of  the  method  and  suc- 
cess of  inoculating  the  small-pox  in  New  England.  By  . . . with  a 
reply  to  the  objections  made  against  it  from  principles  of  con- 
science. In  a letter  from  a minister  at  Boston  (Rev.  Wm.  Cooper). 
To  which  is  now  prefixed  an  historical  introduction  by  Daniel 
Neal.  8°.  London,  1722. 

[Cooper  (W.)]:  A reply  to  the  objections  made  against  taking 
the  small-pox  in  the  way  of  inoculation  from  principles  of  con- 
science, in  a letter  to  a friend  in  the  country.  By  a minister  in 
Boston.  3d  ed.  8°.  Boston,  1730.  Dutch,  Rotterdam,  1792. 

Douglass  (W.) : The  abuses  and  scandals  of  some  late  pamph- 
lets in  favour  of  inoculation  of  the  small-pox,  modestly  obviated, 
and  inoculation  further  consider’d  in  a letter  to  A.  S.,  in  London. 
(With  postscript.)  8°.  Boston,  1722. 

Douglass  (William) : Inoculation  of  the  small-pox  as  practiced 
in  Boston,  considered  in  a letter  to  A(lexander)  S(tuart),  M.  D. 
and  F.  R.  S.  (dated  Dec.  20,  1721).  Boston,  1722  (Jan.  13).  12°. 

Douglass  (William):  A dissertation  concerning  inoculation  of 

small-pox  (etc.).  Boston,  1730. 

Faithful  (A)  abridgement  of  two  accounts  in  the  Philosophical 
Transactions  (on  the  inoculation  for  small-pox,  by  Dr.  Emmanuel 
Timonius  and  Jacobus -Pylarinus,  Venetian  consul  at  Smyrna). 
12°.  (Boston,  n.  d.)  Repr.  from  Phil.  Tr.,  1700-20.  London, 
1721,  v. 

Faithful  (A)  account  of  what  has  occurred  under  the  late  ex- 
periments of  the  small-pox  managed  and  governed  in  the  way  of 
inoculation.  Published  partly  to  put  a stop  unto  that  unaccount- 
able way  of  lying,  which  fills  the  town  and  country  on  this 

(63) 


occasion;  and  partly  for  the  information  and  satisfaction  of  our 
friends  in  other  places.  Boston  (Gazette,  no.  101),  Oct.  30,  1721. 
(Ascrib.  by  Fitz,  321,  to  Boylston,  by  Kittredge,  460,  to  C.  Mather.) 

Franklin  (B.):  Some  account  of  the  success  of  inoculation  for 
the  small-pox  in  England  and  America.  Together  with  plain  in- 
structions by  which  any  person  may  he  enabled  to  perform  the 
operation  and  conduct  the  patient  through  the  distemper  (by 
Wm.  Heberden).  4°.  London,  1759. 

Friendly  (A)  debate;  or,  a dialogue  between  Academicus  and 
Sawny  and  Mundungus,  two  eminent  physicians,  about  some  of 
their  late  performances.  (Feb.  15,  1721-2.)  12°.  Boston,  1722 

(by  Isaac  Greenwood). 

Friendly  (A)  debate;  or,  a dialogue  between  Rusticus  and  Acade- 
micus about  the  late  performance  of  Academicus.  12°.  Boston, 
1722. 

f Greenwood  (Isaac)  ] ; A friendly  debate,  or  a dialogue  between 
Academicus;  and  Sawny  and  Mundungus.  Boston,  1722. 

Hamilton  (Alex.) : A defense  of  Dr.  Thomson’s  discourse  on  the 
preparation  of  the  body  for  small-pox.  Annapolis.  Philadelphia, 
1751. 

Imposition  (The)  of  inoculation  as  a duty  religiously  consid- 
ered in  a letter  to  a gentleman  in  the  country  inclined  to  admit 
it.  Boston,  1721  (Jan’y  1,  1722). 

Kilpatrick  ( J. ) : An  essay  on  inoculation,  occasioned  by  the 

small-pox  being  brought  into  South  Carolina  in  the  year  1738. 
London,  1743. 

Letter  (A)  from  one  in  the  country,  to  his  friend  in  the  city 
(Dr.  Francis  Archibald);  in  relation  to  their  distresses  occa- 
sioned by  the  doubtful  and  prevailing  practice  of  the  inoculation 
of  the  small-pox.  Printed  for  . . . Nicholas  Boone  . . . and  John 
Edwards  . . . Boston,  1721.  12°. 

Letter  (A)  to  Dr.  Zabdiel  Boylston;  occasion’d  by  a late  disser- 
tation concerning  inoculation  (by  Dr.  Wm.  Douglass),  printed  at 
Boston.  8°.  Boston,  1730. 

MacLeane  (L) : An  essay  on  the  expediency  of  inoculation  and 
the  seasons  most  proper  for  it.  12°.  Philadelphia,  1756. 

Mather  (Cotton) : “ Curiosities  of  the  small-pox.”  A.  L..  July 
12,  1716.  Letter  10  to  Dr.  Woodward  (11  curiosa  Americana)  for 
R.  S.  (orig.  draught  and  covering  letter  in  poss.  of  Mass.  Hist. 
Soc. ).  Fair  copies  missing.  Not  printed.  Contemporary  tran- 
script among  Sloane  MSS.  Brit.  Mus.  (First  mention  of  negro 
inoculation.)  K. 

Mather  (Cotton);  Address  (letter)  to  the  physicians  of  Boston 
(June  6,  1721).  A.  L.  not  printed,  lost.  K. 

Mather  (Cotton);  A vindication  of  the  ministers  of  Boston, 
from  the  abuses  and  scandals  lately  cast  upon  them,  in  diverse 
printed  papers.  By  some  of  their  people.  Boston,  1722.  K. 


(64) 


Mather  (Cotton)  : A letter  to  a friend  in  the  country,  attempt- 
ing a solution  of  the  scruples  and  objections  of  a conscientious  or 
religious  nature,  commonly  made  against  the  new  way  of  re- 
ceiving the  small-pox.  By  a minister  of  Boston,  1721  (Nov.  20). 
K. 

Mather  (Cotton):  The  Angel  of  Bethesda.  MS.  A.  A.  S.,  Chap, 
xx,  134  negro  inocul.,  135-140  summary  of  Timonius  and  Pylari- 
nus,  140-141  etiology  (probably  identical  with  “ Address,”  not 
printed,  but  ready  Feb.  20,  1724.)  K. 

Mather  (Cotton):  Sentiments  on  the  small-pox  inoculated. 

(Publ.  Nov.  23,  1721.)  On  single  fol.  sheet  together  with  Increase 
Mather’s  “ several  reasons.”  See  parody  of  “ Sentiments  ” in 
New  Engl.  Courant,  Nov.  27,  1721.  K. 

Mather  (Cotton)  : An  account  of  the  method  and  success  of 
inoculating  the  small-pox  in  Boston,  New  England.  In  a letter 
from  a gentleman  there  to  his  friend  in  London  (Jeremiah 
Dummer).  London.  Printed  for  J.  Peele  at  Locks  Head  in 
Paternoster  Row,  MDCCXXII  (1722).  Dated  at  the  end  “ Boston 
in  New  England,  Sept.  7,  1721.”  Dedicated  “ To  Sir  Hans  Sloane, 
Pres.,  and  to  the  rest  of  the  Coll,  of  Phys.”  Signed  “ Jer. 
Dummer.”  K. 

Mather  (Cotton) : Letter  to  Dr.  John  Woodward,  March  10, 

1721/22.  A.  L.  (contemporary  copy)  in  Sloane  MS.  3324,  fol. 
260  (quoted  by  Jurin  to  Cotesworth,  1723,  and  by  Douglass  in 
Dissertation,  1730).  Not  printed,  K.  477;  perhaps  in  some  London 
newspaper.  (The  curiosa  variolorum  in  M.’s  catalog  and  Diary.) 
K. 

Mather  (Cotton) : The  case  of  the  small-pox  inoculated;  further 
cleared.  To  Dr.  James  Jurin  (sent  probably  May  21,  1723).  Dated 
May  4,  1723.  Mather’s  only  draught  in  A.  A.  S.,  another  copy 
in  Arch.  R.  S.,  4 to  11  pp.,  same  title;  dated  May  21,  1723;  not 
autograph,  but  signed  and  dated  by  Mather.  K. 

Mather  (Increase) : Some  further  account  from  London  of  the 
small-pox  inoculated.  2d  ed.  (Appearance),  Boston,  1721/2.  K. 

Mather  (Increase):  Several  reasons  proving  that  inoculating 
or  transplanting  the  small-pox  is  a lawful  practice,  by  . . . 
(Single  fol.  sheet  with  second  piece  attrib.  to  C.  Mather;  “ Senti- 
ments.” Publ.  Boston,  Nov.  23,  1721.)  K. 

Morgan  (John)  : A recommendation  of  inoculation  according  to 
Baron  Dimsdale’s  method.  8°.  Boston,  1776. 

Newman  (H.) : Way  of  proceeding  in  the  small-pox  inoculation 
in  New  England.  (Phil.  Trans.  London,  1722,  xxxii,  33.  (As- 
cribed to  Cotton  Mather  by  Kittredge.) 

Rush  (B.) : The  new  method  of  inoculation  for  the  small-pox; 
delivered  in  a lecture  in  the  University  of  Philadelphia,  Feb.  20, 
1781.  12°.  Philadelphia,  1781.  German,  Anspach,  1723. 


(65) 


Rush  (B.) : An  account  of  a case  of  small-pox  after  variolous 
inoculation.  Phila.  Med.  Museum,  1808,  v.  183-187. 

Thomson  (Adam) : A discourse  on  the  preparation  of  the  body 
for  the  small-pox,  and  the  manner  of  receiving  the  infection. 
Philadelphia,  B.  Franklin  and  D.  Hall.  1750. 

Vindication  (A)  of  the  ministers  of  Boston,  from  the  abuses 
and  scandals  lately  cast  upon  them  in  diverse  printed  papers. 
By  some  of  their  people.  12°.  Boston,  1722. 

Williams  (John)  (al.  Mundungus) : Several  arguments  prov- 
ing that  inoculating  the  small-pox  is  not  contained  in  the  law  of 
physick,  either  natural  or  Divine,  and  therefore  unlawful.  To- 
gether with  a reply  to  two  short  pieces,  one  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  In- 
crease Mather,  and  another  by  an  anonymous  author,  intituled 
“ Sentiments  on  the  small-pox  inoculated,”  and  also,  “ A short 
answer  to  a late  letter  in  the  New  England  Courant.”  By  . . . 
Boston.  Printed  and  sold  by  J.  Franklin,  1721  (probably  Dec. 
4,  K.). 

Williams  (Nathaniel):  The  method  of  practice  in  the  small- 
pox with  observations  on  the  way  of  inoculation.  Boston.  1752. 

Williams  (Nathaniel):  The  same.  Taken  from  a manuscript 
of  the  late  Dr.  ...  of  Boston,  N.  E.,  published  for  the  common 
advantage,  more  especially  of  the  country  towns  who  may  be 
visited  with  that  distemper.  12°.  Boston,  1752. 

Ill  Recent  Literature. 

Behrend  (Gustav):  Ueber  Variolation.  Ein  historischer  Riick- 
blick  bei  Gelegenheit  der  Hundertjahrsfeier  der  Entdeckung  Ed. 
Jenner’s.  Deutsch.  med.  Wchnschr.  Berlin,  1898,  No.  20. 

Bohn  (Heinrich):  Handbuch  der  Vaccination.  Leipzig,  1875. 

Boing  (H.):  Neue  Untersuchungen  zur  Pocken-  und  Impf- 

Frage.  Berlin,  1898. 

Bradley:  Inoculation  for  small-pox  in  Siam.  Bangkok  Calen- 
dar, 1865  (quoted  in  Health  Officer  H.  C.  Highet’s  report  of  year 
R.  S.  127,  i.  e.,  1908-9,  xii,  12;  also  Paul  G.  Woolley  in  paper  Sect, 
vi  of  xv  Int.  Congs.  Hyg.,  1912). 

Creighton  (Charles):  A history  of  epidemics  in  Britain.  664 
A.  D.-1893  A.  D.  London,  1891-94. 

Daniels  (Dr.  C.  E.):  De  Kinderpok-inenting  in  Nederland, 

marendeels  naar  onuitgegeven  bescheiden  bewerkt.  1875.  (Neder- 
landsch  Tydsclirift  voor  Geneeskunde,  2e  Reeks  II,  p.  52.) 

Ebstein  (W.) : George  und  William  Motherby  in  ihren  Bezie- 
hungen  zur  Variolation  und  der  Kuhpockenimpfung.  Arch.  f. 
Gesch.  d.  Med.,  Leipzig,  1911,  iv,  31. 

Fitz  (Reginald  H.):  Zabdiel  Boyston,  inoculator,  and  the  epi- 
demic of  small-pox  in  Boston  in  1721.  Johns  Hopkins  Hosp.  Bull. 
Bait.,  1911,  xxii,  31-327. 


(66) 


Grandivilliers  (A.  N.):  Essai  historique  sur  l’inoculation  de  la 
variole.  4°.  Paris,  1854. 

Kittredge:  Some  lost  works  of  Cotton  Mather.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc. 
Proc.,  Feb.,  1912,  pp.  418-479. 

Krul  (R.) : De  enting  der  ware  pokjes,  de  variolatie,  herdacht. 
(Geneesk.  Courant.  7.  Mei  1904.)  (Inoculation  of  true  small-pox, 
variolation  recalled.) 

Kiibler  (P.):  Geschicbte  der  Pocken  und  der  Impfung.  (Bib- 
liothek  v.  Coler.,  v.  1.)  Berlin,  1901. 

Kussmaul  (A.):  Zwanzig  Brief e iiber  Menscbenpocken-  und 

Kuhpocken-Impfung.  Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1870. 

Monteils  (E.) : Histoire  de  la  vaccination.  Montpellier  and 

Paris,  1874. 

Morat  (E.) : * Etude  sur  les  idees  et  les  faits  relatifs  au  virus 

variolique  au  XVIII.  siecle.  Paris,  1911. 

Neveux:  Inoculation  a l’bomme  de  la  pustule  de  variole  du 

singe.  Bull.  soc.  path,  exot.,  Paris,  1910,  III,  497. 

Osborne  ( J. ) : Success  of  inoculation  in  Boston.  London,  1722. 
(Phil.  Tr.) 

Pfeiffer  (L.) : Litteraturgeschichte  der  Blattern-  und  Kuh- 

pockenimpfung.  I.  Blatternimpfung.  fob  (Weimar,  1863,  vel 
subseq.) 

Pfeiffer  (L.) : Zur  Jennerfeier  des  14.  Mai  1896.  Medaillen, 
Portrats  und  Abbildungen,  betreffend  E.  Jenner,  die  Variolation, 
die  Vaccination  und  die  Vaccine.  Tubingen,  1896. 

Pfeiffer  (L.)  and  Ruland  (C.):  Pestilentia  in  nummis.  Ge- 

schichte  der  grossen  Volkskrankheiten  in  numismatischen  Docu- 
menten.  Tubingen,  1882. 

von  Pirquet  (C.):  Kliniscbe  Studien  iiber  Vakzination  und 

vakzinale  Allergie.  Leipzig  and  Wien,  1907. 

Parin  (N.  L.):  Etude  historique  et  critique  de  l’inoculation 

variolique  au  point  de  vue  de  ses  qualites  preservatrices.  4°. 
Bordeaux,  1892. 

Puscbmann  (Th.)  : Historisch-kritische  Beleuchtung  der  Blat- 
tern-Impfung.  Wien.  med.  Wchnschr.,  1892,  Nr.  48-52. 

Smith  (H.  Lee)  : Dr.  Adam  Thompson,  the  originator  of  the 
American  method  of  inoculation  for  small-pox.  Johns  Hopkins 
Hosp.  Bull.,  1909,  xx,  49-52. 

Toner  ( J.  M.)  : History  of  inoculation  in  Massachusetts.  Bos- 
ton, 1868. 

Toner  (J.  M.) : History  of  inoculation  in  Pennsylvania.  Phila- 
delphia, 1865. 


(07) 


•p:-:  - • 


DATE  DUE 


ON-CIRCULATiNG 


Aet^6S920a 


ssuejqn  AjisjSAiuf)  e>|na 


